The False Intelligence Behind the “Manufactured Crisis” over Iran’s Nuclear Activities

We are pleased to publish the piece below by Gareth Porter, author of the new book, Manufactured Crisis:  The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare, which offers an exceptionally thorough deconstruction of the intelligence (and media) “case” that Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons.  We are grateful to Gareth for writing the piece, and commend his work to our readers.

–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett   

The False Intelligence Behind the “Manufactured Crisis” over Iran’s Nuclear Activities

Gareth Porter*

The world’s news media have long accepted without question the charge that Iran had for many years used its civilian nuclear program as a cover for a nuclear weapons program. That narrative has rested on intelligence documents and reports that were accepted as credible by the International Atomic Energy Agency.  The IAEA in turn has been treated in the news media as a non-political authority without any axe to grind.

But, as I document in detail in Manufactured Crisis, the intelligence documents at the heart of this narrative were fabrications created by the state with most obvious interest in promoting such a narrative—Israel.  The origin of the false intelligence was the ambition of the neoconservatives in the Bush administration and their Israeli ally to carry out regime change in Iran, which they believed would require the use of force, though not with large-scale ground troop as in Iraq.  They also believed that the only way to justify such a war would be to build a case that Iran was threatening to obtain nuclear weapons of mass destruction.

Against the backdrop of a political strategy for Iran, on which Undersecretary of State John Bolton was coordinating with Israel in 2003-04, a large cache of documents from a Iranian nuclear weapons research program came into the possession of Germany’s intelligence agency, the BND, late in the summer of 2004.  They included computer modeling of a series of efforts to integrate what appeared to be a nuclear weapon into the Shahab-3 Iranian missile, and experiments with high explosives that could be used to detonate a nuclear weapon.  Someone leaked to David Sanger of the New York Times that those documents had come from the laptop computer of an Iranian scientist involved in the alleged program who later feared that he had been discovered and managed to get the computer out through his wife.  U.S. officials told senior IAEA officials that they feared the “third party” that had brought out the documents was now dead, according to former Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei.

But that was a crudely constructed cover story to hide the real source of the documents.  In fact, the German intelligence agency, BND got those documents from a member of the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), the Iranian terrorist organization that had become a client of Israel.  The MEK member was a sometime source for the agency,  but senior BND officials regarded the source as “doubtful,” according to former senior German official Karsten Voigt, who told me the whole story of his November 2004 conversation with his BND contacts on the record a year ago.

The senior BND officials had contacted Voigt, who was then coordinator of North-American relations for the foreign office, immediately after Secretary of State Colin Powell had made comments to reporters about “information” that Iran was “working hard” to combine a ballistic missile with “a weapon.”   The BND officials were alarmed that the Bush administration was intending to make a case for war against Iran based on those doubtful documents.

The sequence of events presented a remarkable series of parallels with the Bush administration’s exploitation of the BND source codenamed “Curveball” to make the case for war against Iraq less than two years earlier.  That Iraqi refugee in Germany—who turned out to be the brother of a senior official of Ahmad Chalabi’s Iraqi National Council—had told tales of Iraqi mobile bioweapons labs to the BND, which had passed them on to the CIA.  But BND officers had eventually begun to doubt his stories.  When George Tenet had asked BND chief August Hanning in December 2002 whether the United States could use the information publicly, Hanning had written a personal note to warn him that the United States should not rely on the information without further confirmation.  Colin Powell had nevertheless used the very information about which Hanning had warned as the centerpiece of the case for war in Iraq.  Now Powell was going public with another claim about WMD intelligence from another dubious source to make what sounded like the beginning of a case for war against another adversary of the United States.

Voigt believed the senior BND officials wanted him to issue another warning to the United States not to rely on these documents, and a few days later, he did give such a warning in public, in a coded fashion. In an article in the Wall Street Journal Voigt was reported to have said the information to which Powell had referred had come from “an Iranian dissident group” and that the United States and Europe should not “let their Iran policy be influenced by single-source headlines.”

The BND officials were not the only ones who had questions about those documents.   Some U.S. intelligence analysts wondered why the purported nuclear weapons research project documents only included material about alleged high explosives experiments, a missile reentry vehicle and the design of another uranium conversion facility totally different from the one Iran had adopted after years of research, development and testing.  Why, they wondered was there nothing about weapons design?  And why was the work on the missile reentry vehicle amateurish – or, as David Albright put it to this writer in a September 2008 interview, “so primitive”?  Why was the design for a bench-scale conversion process marred by such fundamental flaws that the IAEA’s Olli Heinonen had to acknowledge in a February 2008 briefing that it had “technical inconsistencies.”

The documents also exhibited anomalies that were direct indicators of fraud.  The most dramatic was the fact that the studies modeling the missile reentry vehicle were based on the initial Shahab-3 missile, which the Iranian missile program is known to have begun to replace with an improved model as early as 2000 – two years before those modeling studies were said to have been started in mid-2002. The redesign of the reentry vehicle, which was a key to improved design, would have been far advanced by then, according to Michael Elleman of International Institute for Strategic Studies, who was the main author of an authoritative study of the Iranian ballistic missile program.  The shape of the new reentry vehicle, first revealed to the world when the new missile was flight tested in August 2004, bore no resemblance to the old one portrayed in the documents.  The authors of the documents had obviously been unaware of that complete redesign of the reentry vehicle, meaning that they could not have part of an Iranian Defense Ministry-sponsored program.

The creators of the collection of documents were clever enough to build them around an authentic document that could be verified as real and thereby lend credibility to a collection that otherwise lacked any evidence of authenticity.  But the document was not from inside the Iranian government but a letter from a high tech company to an Iranian engineering firm.  It would have been relatively easy for Mossad, which carries out constant surveillance of high tech companies, to acquire that document.  The document was then used to provide evidence of connections between different parts of the alleged project that was otherwise absent: anonymous handwriting on it referred to the reentry vehicle study.   Those touches reveal creators who were eager to maximize the political effect of the document and apparently not worried that they would be too obvious.

The daring of the venture as well as the fact that the actual document around which it was built would have been a routine discovery for Mossad leave little room for doubt about the Israeli origins of the collection.

The plan had been to have the IAEA focus entirely on what ElBaradei was calling the “alleged studies” once the “Work Program” negotiated with Iran on the various other issues the Agency had raised since 2004 was completed. But then came the National Intelligence Estimate of November 2007, which concluded that Iran had stopped the work on nuclear weapons that the intelligence community had been certain it had been doing for years in 2003.  That estimate all but eliminated the case for the use of force, so it created a serious problem for Israel.

The Israelis responded quickly, however, coming up with an entirely new series of intelligence documents and reports in 2008 and 2009 showing that Iranian nuclear weapons research and development program was far more advanced than previously believed.  Those documents were transmitted to the IAEA directly by Israel, according to ElBaradei’s memoirs, but the IAEA never disclosed that highly salient fact.

The first document arrived as early as April 2008, and the IAEA’s Safeguards Department immediately mentioned it in the May 2008 IAEA report.  It was a Farsi-language report on experiments with high explosives that was obviously intended to suggest the initiation of a hemispherical charge for an implosion nuclear weapon.

The very next IAEA report in September 2008 announced that the experiment “may have involved the assistance of foreign expertise.”   That was obviously a reference to a scholarly paper on a methodology for measuring intervals between explosions using fiber optic cables co-authored in 1992 by Ukrainian scientist Vyacheslav Danilenko, who had worked in Iran from 1999 to 2005.  The IAEA thus swallowed the implausible Israeli claim that a spy had obtained a top secret Iranian document on nuclear weapon-related experiments that just happened to involve the same methodology about which Danilenko had published.

The far more plausible sequence of events was that Mossad had discovered Danilenko’s work in Iran in a routine investigation of foreign personnel in the country and soon found out that he had worked at the Soviet nuclear weapons complex at Chelyabinsk and had published on a method for measuring explosive internals.  Those discoveries would have inspired the idea of secret Iran document describing high explosives experiments that would include a measurement technique that would implicate Danilenko—who would be portrayed as a Soviet nuclear weapons specialist—in the alleged Iran nuclear weapons program.

Further supporting that explanation for the appearance of the document is the fact that the most sensational intelligence claim in the November 2011 IAEA report involves yet another Danilenko publication.  The IAEA said it had “information” that Iran had built a high explosives containment chamber in 2000 “in which to conduct hydrodynamic experiments”, which it defines as tests to “simulate the first stages of a nuclear explosion”, at its Parchin military facility.  And it cited a publication by the same “foreign expert”—i.e., Danilenko—as allowing it to “confirm the date of construction of the cylinder and some of its design features (such as its dimensions).”

That Danilenko publication, however, was actually on the design of an explosives chamber for the production of nanodiamonds.  The drawing of the chamber accompanying the article, moreover, displays features, such as air and water systems for cooling the tank immediately before and after the explosion, that would have made it unusable for the purpose of testing nuclear weapons designs.  Despite having worked in a Soviet nuclear weapons complex for many years, Danilenko had worked from the beginning of his career on explosive synthesis of nanodiamonds, which involved no knowledge of nuclear weapons or of methods for testing them.  (The first American to discover nanodiamonds synthesis, Dr. Ray Grenier, who had also worked for many years in Los Alamos National Laboratory, the top U.S. nuclear weapons complex, told me that he himself had never worked on anything directly connected with nuclear weapons, and that all of his work on nanodiamonds synthesis had been unclassified.)

The IAEA never produced any confirming evidence for the tale of the bomb test chamber at Parchin provided by Israel.  Former IAEA chief inspector in Iraq Robert Kelley, who had also been project leader for nuclear intelligence at Los Alamos national laboratory and head of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Remote Sensing Laboratory, immediately pointed out that the IAEA description of the alleged explosive containment chamber and its intended purpose made no sense technically.  Kelley observed that the capacity of the alleged chamber to contain 70 kilograms of high explosives reported by the IAEA would have been as “far too small” for the kind of hydrodynamic nuclear tests the report claimed as its purpose. Kelley and three other intelligence experts on photo interpretation also pointed out that the satellite photos of the site at Parchin indicate that it displays none of the characteristics that would be associated with a high explosives testing site.

And Iran’s behavior in regard to the site in Parchin contradicts the notion that it needed to hide evidence of nuclear testing there.  Iran allowed the IAEA to pick any five sites in one of the four quadrants of Parchin to visit and take environmental samples in February 2005 and then did the same thing again in November 2005.   And the IAEA reported in February 2012 that it had obtained the complete run of satellite photos of the site from February 2005 to February 2012 and found that there was no evidence of any significant activity at the site for the entire seven years.

The tainted intelligence underlying the charges of a covert Iranian nuclear weapons program is now one of the major issues in the nuclear negotiations with Iran.   The introduction of the demand that Iran must satisfy the IAEA indicates either that the Obama administration believes completely in the official nuclear narrative and is dangerously overconfident about its bargaining position or that the administration has been assured by IAEA director general Yukiya Amano that he will do what is necessary to reach agreement with Iran on the issue of “possible military dimensions” of the nuclear program.  In either case, the fate of the false intelligence and the fate of the nuclear talks are now deeply intertwined.

* Gareth Porter is an independent investigative journalist and historian who writes on U.S. national security issues.  His latest book Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare, was published in February by Just World Books.  In 2012 he received the Gellhorn Prize for journalism awarded by the UK-based Gellhorn Trust.  Columbia University international relations specialist Robert Jervis called his previous book, Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam, “[t]he most important contribution to our understanding of the war in Vietnam since the Pentagon Papers”.


183 Responses to “The False Intelligence Behind the “Manufactured Crisis” over Iran’s Nuclear Activities”

  1. BiBiJon says:

    Manufactured Crisis, or manufactured job for crisis solvers?

    All well, and good Mr. Einhorn, except the bit about “Congressional authorization for the use of military force in the event that Iran abrogates the final deal” and “Presidential statements reinforcing American readiness to strengthen sanctions and, as necessary, use force in response to any Iranian breakout activities.”

    I cannot imagine Iran signing anything with those kinds of ‘or else’ caveats.

  2. fyi says:

    BiBiJon says:

    March 31, 2014 at 12:33 pm

    In effect, Mr. Einhorn is suggesting that Iranians furnish the excuse for Axis Powers’ war against them before that war is initiated by Axis Powers.

  3. Bussed-in Basiji says:


    As I predicted a few months ago…

    The most pro-American, most anti-Muslim member of Socialist party.

    He will be Socialist presidential candidate after Hollande.

    Interior Minister Valls to be named new French PM

  4. BiBiJon says:

    Commiserations to fellow Iranians

  5. Karl.. says:

    Bussed in Basiji

    Also the most anti-Roma and one of the most pro-Israel.

  6. nico says:

    Bussed-in Basiji says:
    “As I predicted a few months ago…
    The most pro-American, most anti-Muslim member of Socialist party.
    He will be Socialist presidential candidate after Hollande.
    Interior Minister Valls to be named new French PM”

    Karl.. says:
    “Also the most anti-Roma and one of the most pro-Israel.”

    Well that is the best news that could come today.
    Actually Valls is quite the representative of the main stream parties slavery to the western and specifically EU doxa.
    He is pro EU, extremist zionist, close to freemasonery, anti national but tribal racist.
    The true orwellian and shoah extremist religious and ideolog.
    Not even french by blood or by local birh.
    The true face of globalization under western economic ultra liberalism and rotting of all traditional values.
    The issue being the total bankruptcy of such ideology and the wqy to decadence and suffering.
    That will only precipitate regime change in France when his obviously decadent plan for France will miserably fail.
    Unfortunately as said many times here, in US or other western nations, things needs to and will get much worse for the circumstances to get better afterward.
    Valls is the right guy for that as Obama is.

    Good news indeed !

  7. fyi says:


    Al Qaeda attacks US but Iran and Sudan are held liable:

    Wonder never ceases….

  8. kooshy says:


    Since the Obama’s trip to SKA it seems the Obama regime is now trying to sterilize Al Qaeda’s image this was an interesting revelation in the Al monitor article you linked ISIS is no longer like Al Qaeda since no longer affiliated.
    They are now clean good normal every day western accepted terrorists.

    “ISIS, formerly an al-Qaeda affiliate, has been assaulting the Kurdish inhabited city of Kobani in the province of Aleppo from three sides since March 15. This area is one of the three regions where the Kurds announced autonomous canton administrations close to the border with Turkey.

    Read more:

  9. Pirouz says:

    On my suggestion, San Francisco library system ordering copies of Manufactured Crisis and latest edition of Going to Tehran. Hope to be put into circulation soon for checkout.

  10. Pirouz says:

    Regarding the Einhorn piece, while I disagree with his uncritical acceptance of ISIS related claims, the idea of a U.S. strike condition as a response isn’t original.

    We had a similar condition in our agreement with North Vietnam (it even included language the use of American nuclear weapons as a response to breaking of the agreement!) that allowed us a military withdrawal from South Vietnam. Then, when North Vietnam again invaded the south, we didn’t act on that condition (a frustration to many of my classmates fathers serving in the military at that time). The South was able to blunt that offensive but another followed which succeeded in unifying the country by means of military force.

  11. fyi says:

    Pirouz says:

    March 31, 2014 at 7:44 pm

    US is too degenerated for those things to make any difference:


    One president goes to lay a wreath at an SS Cemetery in Germany

    Another harangues Iran from the same country whose population celebrated 9/11/2001
    attacks on US

    And another harangues a sovereign State – Russia – for not teaching homosexuality as acceptable life choice to the Russian Children.

    I used to think Iran was being led by fools, now I see that US is too….

  12. fyi says:

    Pirouz says:

    March 31, 2014 at 8:06 pm

    The stragtegic situation was different; in case South East Asia, US had made strategic choice to withdraw.

    And the world was bi-polar.

    US strategic thrust is the destruction of Iranian power by all means necessary and there is no Soviet Union.

    Mr. Einhorn is asking Iranians to agree to the terms of their destruction.

  13. fyi says:

    Nasser says:

    March 31, 2014 at 7:18 pm

    I think Iran should not agree to anything beyond NPT.

    If US, EU, Russia, China insist on any of the provisions of this document, Iran should leave NPT.

    Iran will be attacked in any case and she has nothing to loose any longer.

  14. Pirouz says:

    I may be mistaken about the nuclear strike condition for the Vietnam War, as I made a brief search and didn’t come up with it. It may be an example of a mistaken memory from my time as a teenager. (This may have been a political threat made to domestic audiences by Nixon but I need to check further.)

    I’ll do a little more checking but until then, persons should dismiss that post.

    Another example of a conditional strike provision might be found in the armistice of 1918 but I’ll need to check into that, as well.

  15. Gareth Porter says:

    I cannot let the commenter’s suggestion that the Paris Peace Agreement between the United States and the Democratic Republic of Vietnam contained language that somehow authorize military intervention — and even the use of nuclear weapons — go without correction. As the author of a book on the negotiation of the Paris peace agreement, which includes the full text of that agreement as an appendix, I can assure the commenter that there is no language in the agreement even hinting that the use of force by the United States would be legitimate under any circumstances. The idea that the United States could include language in an agreement with Iran allowing this country to use military force under any circumstances is equally a fantasy.

  16. Nasser says:

    fyi says: March 31, 2014 at 8:31 pm

    – I am of course in complete agreement.

    I already said after they sanctioned Iran’s Central Bank that they could do no worse (sanctions wise)

    Now for any Iranian (like perhaps Mr. Mousavian or Foreign Minister Zarif) that thinks modus vivendi with the West is possible they should recall the example of this guy:

  17. masoud says:

    Gareth Porter says:
    March 31, 2014 at 11:03 pm

    First off, God bless you, not only for this much needed book you’ve written, but for all the diligent work you’ve done on Iran matters up to date.

    I don’t know to what extent you address these matters in the book about two years back, there was a string what seemed like spectacularly unsuccessful false flag car bombings in Georgia, New Dehli, Bangkok and Azerbijan that sought to implicate Iran in terrorism.

    As far as I know, non of these countries, except possibly Azerbijan, has even formally issued a complaint with their Iranian embassy. But I’ve also never heard any explanation for these events offered by the Authorities in any of these countries. I remember that in India they were trying to pin the blame for this on a pro-Kashmiri journalist, but had put together an altogether underwhelming case. In Thailand the authorities actually caught many of the suspects red handed, never made their theories about what transpired and who was ultimately involved public. Do you have any information on what’s been happening with these cases?

  18. BiBiJon says:

    fyi says:
    March 31, 2014 at 1:14 pm

    You know, use of military force, and/or any other tool at a state’s disposal is the prerogative of a state. That is sooooo universally understood that it has NEVER had to be spelt out in any agreement/treaty. With all due respect to Pirouz, (and I’m sure he’ll take Mr Porter’s correction to heart) even a peace treaty which he cites does not require an explicit provision to return to hostilities should the terms be broken. For the simple reason that it is so bleeding obvious as to be uncouth to mention in the language of even a peace treaty.

    The peculiar psychosis that gets Ms. Malony to highlight Mr Einhorn’s psychotic provisions for bombing Iran in his “final nuclear deal” can only be understood as their unwitting attestation that a state of war exists between the the US and Iran, and that Einhorn’s is not just a “final nuclear agreement,” but a PEACE treaty.

    You get my drift. In order not to call the current state of affairs as a ‘war,’ Malony/Einhorn include ludicrous ‘use of force’ provisions in a common-or-garden nuclear agreement. I.e. evidently all options are glued on the table for ever, and they find comfort in reminding themselves that is the case, every chance they get.

    Probably the folks who were water boarded dozens of times were more lucid, than the torment of intellectual dishonesty allows Malony/Einhorn of this world.

    Also See

  19. A concerned world citizen says:

    I think Zarif and Ruhani are fools in believing that they can be seen as equals in reaching any deal with the P5 + 1.

    The negotiations are just a ceasefire period for the West to regroup and come back strong.

    The only reason I see Ruhani/Zarif so eager on the nuclear deal is because it’s tied to their political future. A deal(ANY deal) is all they need to disarm the principalists in Iran.

  20. fyi says:

    BiBiJon says:

    April 1, 2014 at 6:22 am

    They are imperial analysts and have to couch their analysis into a form that would keep them employed and “relevant” in the Court of the Mad King.

    Mr. Einhorn, in fact comprehends the strategic necessity for a nuclear-armed Iran, but that is not what he is paid to articulate.

    Mrs. Maloney, on the other hand, cannot understand why anyone in his right might would refuse to accede to imperial demarches; for her they are next to Sanity itself.

    Regardless, this script has been played for centuries and it will be played for many more centuries; the dream of Universal Empire (an Iranian Invention) is pursued in conjunction with the unrealized and unrealizable dream of World Hegemony.

  21. BiBiJon says:

    A concerned world citizen says:
    April 1, 2014 at 8:52 am

    Without attempting to know the unkowable, and predict the unpredictable, the two sides, Iran and the US have come to a pre-agreement to negotiate with the goal of a final agreement.

    Are you saying Iran should not enter into these negotiations in the first place?

    I think, disparity of power, temporary war weariness, etc. is not reason enough for Iran to refuse to negotiate. Both sides have come to the table from a position of strength. Iran has gone from a few hundred to 19,000 centrifuges and can double its enrichment capacity in a matter of days by feeding the 10,000 currently-idling machines. US has managed to impose its will on third parties, who despite economic losses have not taken the issue of third party sanctions to WTO.

    Healthy cynicism would have us see it as a beauty contest; who in the eyes of the world is being more reasonable. Even if it were just a beauty contest, no-shows automatically cede advantage to their nemesis.

  22. Nasser says:

    By Dr. Friedman from Stratfor: “Russia and the United States Negotiate the Future of Ukraine”

    Summary: Both sides have reasons to lower tensions, neither side is ready for a full blown conflict and so they agree to a ceasefire. But this isn’t over. Hostilities/conflict/competition will resume sometime in the future.

    Iran also gets a mention: “Finally, the United States has global interests that the Russians can affect. Iran is the most obvious one. Thus, the Russians can link issues in Ukraine to issues in Iran to extract a better deal with the United States.”

    I agree with this take.

  23. Karl.. says:

    A concerned world citizen

    I fully agree.
    Just take UKraine and see how they treat Russia. You cant make peace with these people.

  24. Bussed-in Basiji says:

    Congratulations Americans,

    Israel squeezes America’s balls HARD…and US loves it!

    Extension to Israel-Palestine Peace Talks Hinges on Pollard

    U.S. to Consider Release of Spy Convicted in 1985 in Return for Concessions From Israel

  25. Bussed-in Basiji says:

    Well, looks like they all went to Vegas to suck…

    Sheldon Adelson, Iran, and the GOP

  26. Karl.. says:

    Bussed in Basiji

    Yes someone certainly loves rape.
    And what does US, Palestinians, well world get in return?

  27. James Canning says:

    Those following events in Ukraine will should read Gideon Rachman’s column on that subject in the Financial Times today.

  28. James Canning says:


    Your suggestion that the position of the P5+1 in its negotiations with Iran is intended to further “world hegemony” by the US, is simply silly.

  29. James Canning says:


    Once again you argue Iran will be attacked even if it makes a deal with the P5+1. This assertion is preposterous.

  30. fyi says:

    Nasser says:

    March 31, 2014 at 11:15 pm

    This is better; demonstrating the ills of the dictatorship in Libya:

  31. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    April 1, 2014 at 2:34 pm

    Take that up with the Mad King and the Barons in his court.

  32. BiBiJon says:

    James Canning says:
    April 1, 2014 at 2:34 pm

    “Once again you [fyi] argue Iran will be attacked even if it makes a deal with the P5+1. This assertion is preposterous.”

    Is that like saying: to argue Gaddafi’s palaces will be bombed by NATO under the cover of a ‘no fly zone’ a few years after he made a WMD deal and was hailed by Blair, Sarkozi, and Bush, etc. as a model to be followed, would be a preposterous assertion?

  33. nico says:

    It seems the row between qatar and uae/ksa has a reason.
    Qatar helped Iran tl reestablish ties with iran.
    And iran is financing again hamas.

    Qatar fm visited Iran last month for that purpose.

    No doubt ksa is furious.

  34. Khomeini says:

    nico says:
    April 1, 2014 at 4:07 pm

    I have read the same article. I would say Qatar is OPPORTUNIST and a a won-a-beee empire. Its emir likes to think he is the emperor of Qatar-i-stan – something like ex little Britain.

    Every thing Qatar does is to promote its own selfish hegemonic interest. If muslim brotherhood had not collapsed in Egypt it would still be very much anti-iran. Fall of MB in eqypt made it recalculate its relation vis-a-vis Iran. It is still financing terrorists in Syria because it still believes that the terrorists it is backing can win.

    All in all, Qatar must not be trusted – it is same as all the rest of Arab regimes and Erdagon’s Turkey.

  35. James Canning says:


    I am closely following Pbama’s thinking re: Iran. He wants to avoid war, if he can.

  36. James Canning says:


    Libya did not have nukes. Nonsensical comment from North Korea. And Gaddafi said that nukes are dangerous for the country that has them. Ahmadinejad points out that having nukes did zero to prevent the collapse of the Soviet Union.

  37. James Canning says:


    Qatar has been friendly to Hamas and it has tried to help foster a deal with Israel, to help the Palestinians.

  38. James Canning says:


    Gaddafi’s own grossly incompetent PR brought disaster to himself and his family, and great harm to Libya. Self-inflicted disaster, owing ZERO to getting rid of WMD (such as it was).

  39. James Canning says:


    Some Saudi leaders are unhappy with Qatar due to al-Jazeera.

  40. masoud says:

    For Nico, Bussed-in-Basiji, and everyone else with a passing interest in the machinations of the empire in France.

  41. James Canning says:

    I commend Gareth Porter for setting the record straight re: Paris agreement (Vietnam War).

  42. BiBiJon says:

    James Canning says:
    April 1, 2014 at 7:42 pm

    “Gaddafi’s own grossly incompetent PR brought disaster to himself and his family, and great harm to Libya. Self-inflicted disaster, owing ZERO to getting rid of WMD (such as it was).”

    Now, where have I heard such disgustingly brazen, weakly lame excuse for war criminals who bomb countries because of the victim’s inept PR? Oh, right here from, you.

    Fact remains. Negotiations were done. Nuclear stuff handed over. Hands shaken, pictures taken, and the country and its leader loudly hailed as a model. That did not save Libya from destruction on the first opportune pretext, according to you: “bad PR.”

    So why were you calling fyi’s assertion “preposterous?”

  43. kooshy says:

    With Cyrus’ permeation, I would re post his recent post on this Israeli firsters political trio (a think tank version of Peter Paul and Marry) here.

    March 31, 2014

    Einhorn, Ross and Maloney: The false Think Tank version of Iran nuclear history

    Maloney has another article at Brookings Institute’s website which continues to push the preferred and yet totaly fictional narrative about Iran’s nuclear program, which will be the subject of a “discussion” between Robert Einhorn and Dennis Ross (wow, I bet there will be some really deep probing critical debates there…not.)
    Myth: “Then, slightly less than a year ago, everything changed: Iran’s election of a more moderate president, Hassan Rouhani, offered a much-needed (and perhaps deliberately orchestrated) vehicle for the Iranian regime to change course.”

    Fact: The party that “changed course” was the US, in dropping the “zero enrichment” prerequisite for talks that
    the US had thus far insisted on, a demand that thus far was deliberately intended to prevent talks.

    Myth: The negotiations are “intended to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons”

    Fact: This assumes that preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons was the motivation of the standoff thus far when in reality, the real US agenda was imposing regime change in Iran, and the nuclear issue was merely the hyped excuse for it.

    I didn’t read Einhorn’s paper nor will have time for it, because after 10 years I and pretty much the rest of the world is tired of this proIsraeli “get Iran” nonsens that the Einhorns and Ross’ of the world have been pushing. You’re a one-trick pony Ross, and you blew it over Iraq.

    Maloney claims that Einhorn ” He helped devise the strategy that brought Tehran to the table” in which case Einhorn actually devised a strategy that has proven a failure, as Gareth Porter points out in his book,
    actually caused the Iranians expand their nuclear program beyond what the Iranians originally planned, so that now the US is in the position of having to negotiate down that expanded capability. Congrats, Einhorn.

  44. kooshy says:

    This a good analysis of the shift from the western dominated PWW order

    “Why Did BRICS Back Russia on Crimea?
    The BRICS’s support for Russia shows the Western-dominated post-Cold War order is eroding.”

  45. Khomeini says:

    James Canning says:
    April 1, 2014 at 7:40 pm

    “Qatar has been friendly to Hamas and it has tried to help foster a deal with Israel, to help the Palestinians.”

    A DEAL WITH ISRAEL TO HELP PALESTINIANS ????? !!!!!!!!!! Any deal with Israel is surrender and acceptance of illegal occupation of Palestine. Your comment is absurd and CANNING COMEDY.

    Qatar is friendly with Hamas because the later is offspring of Egypt’s MB and Qatari amir (the won-a-beee emperor) wants to USE and MISUSE Hamas to build Qatari Empire dream.

    Qatar “canning support” has nothing to do with plight of Palestinians. If Qatar really wanted to help Palestinians than it should pass some of the arms, it bought and continues to buy from UNCLE SAM, to Hamas to liberate Palestine.

  46. Rehmat says:

    In a recent interview with The Real News Network, Gareth Porter, an investigative historian and journalist specializing in US national security policy, said that the US military is not in the mood to start a new war for Israel in the Middle East. Watch the interview below.

  47. Karl.. says:

    IAEA loves Israel.
    I am not kidding thats more or less the words by IAEA.

  48. fyi says:


    In Northern Syria:

    Controlling the young womb seems to be the main manifestation, nay the foundational cornerstone of Islam….

  49. Don Bacon says:

    The US military SHOULDN’T be in a mood to start another war in the ME, as Porter indicates, but they ain’t too bright.

    USA Today, Apr 1, 2014

    Dempsey: U.S. and Israel agree on Iran threat

    ABOARD A GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT — Israel and the United States are now in broad agreement about the threat that Iran poses to the region and how to deal with it, the top U.S. military official said Tuesday.

    “I think they are satisfied that we have the capability to use a military option if the Iranians choose to stray off the diplomatic path,” Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said of Israeli officials. “I think they are satisfied we have the capability. I think they believe we will use it.”

  50. Karl.. says:

    A concerned citizen

    As I said earlier, you are right and here is new proof:

  51. James Canning says:

    Don Bacon,

    You think Dempsey should have indicated Iran does not need to make the deal with the P5+1?

  52. James Canning says:


    Hamas has difficulty controlling the Gaza Strip, to prevent “free-lance” or splinter-group attacks on Israel. You think Qatar should make this problem worse?

  53. James Canning says:


    You appear unaware that Iranian officials have indicated, in the past, that they will tacitly accept Israel within its pre-1967 borders, if the Palestinians accept this outcome. You appear to argue Iran should paint a target on its back.

  54. James Canning says:


    Most of the neocons wanted, and still want, regime change in Iran. But Obama is simply not seeking war with Iran. “Regime change” is highly unlikely, absent war.

  55. James Canning says:


    I used the word “preposterous” because I see it as highly unlikely that Iran would face large-scale defections from its own army and security services, as happened in Libya.

    If Gaddafi had kept his mouth shut, the pressure from public opinion in Europe, for intervention to protect civilians in Benghazi etc etc, would have been much lower. Gaddafi ignored pleas from European diplomats to quieten down. To stop talking about crushing cockroaches. Etc etc.

  56. James Canning says:


    Gaddafi said nukes were expensive, dangerous to the country that had them, and in any event, Libya would not have been allowed to build them. So, getting rid of his bits and pieces was no big deal, in terms of “defence” of the country.

  57. nico says:

    “W(h)ither Petrodollar: Russia, Iran Announce $20 Billion Oil-For-Goods Deal”

  58. nico says:

    “Russian Retaliation #1: Russia Largest Bank Halts Foreign Currency Loans”

  59. nico says:

    “Furious Russia Will Retaliate Over “Illegal And Absurd” Payment Block By “Hostile” JPMorgan/

  60. Karl.. says:


    Didnt Russia know the west? Didnt russia knew that these acts against them were coming?

  61. fyi says:

    Karl.. says:

    April 2, 2014 at 3:14 pm

    They were hoping that Axis leaders were Rational Actors – in spite of their suspicions to the contrary.

    They realized that they were wrong.

  62. Karl.. says:


    Maybe, but I think russians should know how west works by now.

  63. Don Bacon says:

    James Canning says:
    April 2, 2014 at 1:13 pm

    Don Bacon, You think Dempsey should have indicated Iran does not need to make the deal with the P5+1?

    Generals considering themselves diplomatic experts should rather stick to something they know, if there is anything.

  64. fyi says:


    We read:

    “Young, secular and unhappy with the Erdogan government, but without a credible agenda to win over their countrymen.”

    Reminds me of the Green Movement in Iran in 2009.

  65. fyi says:


    Mr. David Turner, the first director of the organization “Justice for the Pollards”, on Iran:

  66. Rd. says:

    One perspective on obama and KSA,

    the angleo/zax do not have the military, political and financial leverage to force Russia, they want ksa to pay for ukraine’s finances (15B) and drop oil prices/increase production. However, if ksa finances drop, how do they keep their own population from an ‘arab spring’? It seems the anglo/zax are playing the strategic no place option aka, check in chess.

  67. nico says:

    Karl.. says:
    “Didnt Russia know the west? Didnt russia knew that these acts against them were coming?”

    Sure they know.
    They only left the west a chance to amend their policies. Not to avail.
    What we are seeing live is the end of western dominance over the world.
    The geopolitical desintegration we foresaw for years.
    We are in time of great change and danger.
    It mights last for years.

    But the western regimes or to idologically driven as per Valls or Obama.
    There will be no change in western stance as long as the as the bankrupt regimes are overthrown.

    My take is that the final gasp of the western hubris and US dominance will be tye EU desintegration.

    Surely Valls is the right guy in France to make it happen (against his own will).

    But convulsions depend on many events and circumstances.
    History is not written yet.

    We are just seeing the tip over of the balance of power from west to east.
    We are currently on the edge.
    How many time it will last and on Which side it will fall down remain to be seen.

    Surely the western hubristic ideolog will look for a tribalist new cold war. Or just war.
    However the odds are against the west.

    Again the big subject is the one not discussed that much and is the Chinese-US paradoxical relation.

  68. nico says:

    As would have said Rice : the birth pang of a new world order.

  69. nico says:

    What glues the west is the godless ultra-liberal financiers tie with the decadent freemason social liberal ideology.
    What may break the glue is the economic crisis and the social reactionary movements.
    Surely EU is facing such issue.
    As for the US… It is lost case IMHO…

  70. James Canning says:

    Don Bacon,

    Dempsey surely was speaking of that which he knows well, in the comment you disliked.

  71. Don Bacon says:

    James Canning says:
    April 2, 2014 at 6:32 pm
    Don Bacon, Dempsey surely was speaking of that which he knows well, in the comment you disliked.

    I was a Dempsey fan when he spoke out about bombing Syria, and Dempsey put Kerry down for wanting to do so. He did that for military reasons. Very good.

    But inexplicably Dempsey is going off on Iran with “we have the capability to use a military option if the Iranians choose to stray off the diplomatic path” and “I think they are satisfied we have the capability. I think they believe we will use it” is counter to the common sense he expressed on Syria. It’s just plain stupid, as Gareth Porter described. The US ships are vulnerable, PLUS apparently Porter is not aware that the US military has 40,000 troops at half a dozen bases around the Persian Gulf which are vulnerable.

    US bases in Persian Gulf Area
    –about 40,000 US military personnel
    –7,000 U.S. military personnel
    –Isa Air Base, 5th Fleet HQ – expanding
    –Naval Support Activity Bahrain
    –Patriot Battery Site in Riffa, Bahrain
    –15,000 US troops, including a brigade combat team and a combat aviation brigade.
    current bases
    Ali Al Salem Air Base
    Camp Arifjan
    Camp Buehring (formerly Camp Udairi)
    “K” Crossing
    Camp Virginia (closed in 2013)
    Camp Patriot (Shared with Kuwait Naval Base)
    –10,000 military personnel
    — Al Udeid Air Base, Qatar
    –2,000 US military personnel
    –Eskan Village Air Base
    UAE – United Arab Emirates
    –5,000 US military personnel
    — Al-Minhad air base in Dubai, UAE
    — Al-Dhafra Air Force Base

  72. Kathleen says:

    Once again no consequences for those who create very dangerous and false intelligence. And thousands are dead, injured and fucked up for life based on the Bush administration’s false Iraq WMD intelligence.

  73. nico says:

    And as a conclusion to my answer to Karl, as wether Russia knew better or not.
    Sure they did know.
    Just like the Iran leadership knows that the west is unwilling to find a peacefull and respectfull solution to the nuclear crisis.

    The issue was and is to demonstrate one diplomatic good will and principled stance.

    And at the end of the day the west again is losing the soft war on moral ground as against Russia.
    We will see what happen in the Iran nuclear case.

    The issue is that the western regimes are decadent and follow unprincipled extremist ideologies.
    The western regimes wanna play the game of soft power just in a pretending fashion while they are rotten to the core with no common sense and traditional value left.
    The west is turning back to a primitive prechristian tribalist world view and try to hide it behind heavy curtains of propaganda.
    The western regimes wanna play the democratic game and world of freedom in their propagandistic ways while they are the representative of the ultra liberal and “humanitarian” colonialist tyranny for more than 20 years with no respect whatsoever toward the “others”.

    Truly a clash of civilization.

    Russia and Iran to win such war need to unveil and demonstrate the western regimes true evil and extremists goals with fact on the ground.
    That is why they have conciliatory and principled approach with the west.

    That is game of rationale, soft war and winning the hearts and minds.

    Surely the west is losing such struggle.

  74. A concerned citizen says:


    Ruhani/Zarif’s behavior could be summed up in a few words ,naive,willful foolishness,criminal or just plain incompetence. I tend to gravitate towards the last two characteristics of those “moderate/reformists”. For they reform nothing but themselves and their fat pockets. Ruhani is Rafsanjani’s stooge – that much is clear. And we all know what plans the Rafsanjani clan have in mind for Iran. Another year and their true intentions will be revealed for all to see.

    Those reformists find their legitimacy in the Western international order. In fact, it was their tireless effort in helping the West in sanctioning Iran that brought them to power. In effect, they played the role of both arsonists and fireman.

    During Dr. Ahmadinejad’s era, some of these reformists were the most vocal/supportive of Western sanctions against Iran. Now they want to role some of the sanctions back. Whether that will happen, we’ll have to wait and see. I’m not holding my breath though.

    On Russia, I’m glad they’re finally getting a taste of the bitter medicine they’ve been helping the West all these years administer to Iranians. It’s useless entering any deal with the West as they’re the same people that will turn back and break it. NATO is now effectively in Russia’s backyard in Ukraine. And they ain’t leaving anytime soon. So much for Russia-Western corporation. They even kicked them out of NASA.

    My point is, there’s no point in Iran pursuing a deal/corporation with the West as they’re bound to break it in the near future.

    If you’ve been following the nuclear negotiations(kinda like the one-sided Israeli/Palestinian piss process), the US keeps moving the goalpost from one point to the next. First it was about the level of enrichment(20% to 5%), now it’s about Arak, next it’ll be Iranian ballistic missile capabilities, then bullets etc etc..Where will it end?

    Qaddafi foolishly negotiated his own downfall. Back then, he even had the nerve to tell Iranians to follow his example by dismantling their nuclear program. Today he’s dead! Saddam is also dead! Both fools negotiated their own downfall with the West and paid the price.

  75. James Canning says:


    Nato is not in Ukraine, contrary to your claim just now. Ukraine is unlikely to become a member of Nato.

  76. James Canning says:

    Don Bacon,

    I think it highly unlikely Iran will attack US troops.

    Dempsey would be doing a disservice to Iran, if he indicated the US is not insisting that Iran make a deal with the P5+1.

  77. Karl.. says:

    A concerned citizen

    “Where will it end?”

    It wont. It will keep on until Iran is doing what US wants.

  78. James Canning says:


    Be specific: are you claiming the sanctions will not end, even if Iran makes the deal with the P5+1?

    Some who post on this site claimed sanctions against Burma would never end. But they have ended.

  79. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    April 3, 2014 at 2:25 pm

    My recommendation to you and many others is not to confuse Iran with Libya or Burma or any other state.

    Rather, try to understand each state in its own specificity.

    Many years before regime destruction in Libya, many Axis Powers’ commentator and analysts were presenting Libya as a model for the resolution of the Iranian nuclear crisis.

    Well, Libya, a state that was put together at the end of World War II for the first time in history is not comparable with Iran – a state that has existed in various guises for hundreds of years.

    Likewise for Burma; the strategic imperative of Axis Powers have changed; they cannot afford to have China remain unchallenged in her periphery; they need to pry as many states from under her influence as much as they can.

    That does not obtain for Iran.

    Furthermore, the formal structure of sanctions against Iran cannot be dismantled short of regime change in the United States or Iran; whichever comes first.

    Neither of which is going to happen and so one has to wait for the sanctions to erode over many decades and become irrelevant.

    Already, the worst of sanctions is behind Iran – the Iranian leaders have been making structural changes and reducing subsidized standard of living in Iran – all the while blaming successfully US and EU sanctions.

    “What does not kill one, makes one stronger.”

    The biggest incentive US had to offer in negotiations with Iran was that of “State Security” for Iran.

    The events subsequent to 08/21/2013 revealed that there was no substance behind any such potential US offer – that the military destruction of regimes in Syria and Iran remain the objective of US and EU policy – including UK.

    Once that was established beyond doubt, the negotiations were gutted from any potential substance save maintaining the appearance of a diplomatic track.

    So, just like the negotiations over the disposition of Palestine, these will go on until everyone loses interests in them – as you can already see happening.

    US, EU, Australia, India, Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, Turkey cannot go back to the status quo ante of 2007, or 2010, or 2011, or 2013 with Iran. Certainly not after the birth and consolidation of the Shia Crescent over the last 3 years.

    May be the next US President can move in the direction of improving relations with Iran but Mr. Obama cannot and will do no so.

    That opportunity is now past for him.

    Events in

  80. Karl.. says:


    Dont bother he cant understand hes too brainwashed. Burma is a pro-US state today.
    Just as I said earlier for Iran, for Burma it would be:

    “…it will keep on until Burma is doing what US wants.”

    And today Burma is doing what US wants.

  81. fyi says:

    A concerned citizen says:

    April 3, 2014 at 12:02 pm

    The decision to improve the substance of the negotiations between P5+1 and Iran was made by the Iranian leaders before the elections of Mr. Rouhani.

    I suspect that decision was made for several reasons; Iranian leaders felt that they were in a comfortable position in regards to the state of nuclear projects in Iran, they had battle-field successes in Syria, they had managed to withstand the worst of the economic war of Axis Powers against them and they were interested in exploring if they could get anything of value to Iran in exchange for nominal concessions in the nuclear arena.

    Likely, they had been receiving messages from Axis Powers leaders who were – as yet – not prepared to go to war with Iran. I surmise that P5+1 also wished to see if it could keep the diplomatic track alive.

    I think the Russian Federation leaders must have been concerned that their Iran policy was making Iran too weak for the security of the Russian Federation.

    All of these considerations are now obsolete after the events of 08/21/2013 as well as the Annexation of Crimea last month.

    So may be there could be a small deal on 20% or may be there won’t – I cannot tell for certain.

    But a comprehensive settlement of the Iranian nuclear crisis is beyond the reach of individual players; in my opinion.

    US, EU, Russia, India, China have pushed this into strategic Never Land – some one has to lose.

  82. James Canning says:


    You appear to assume Iran would “lose” an ability to build nukes, if it accepts the deal on offer from P5+1. This “loss” in fact would be a gain for Iran. If it eliminated temptation.

  83. James Canning says:


    Situation in Burma is complex. The US and the UK are trying to help protect the Muslim minorities in that country. Apparently you object.

  84. James Canning says:


    The sanctions against Iran have caused much Iranian business to go into the hands of Chinese companies, rather than French, British, American, Italian etc etc. So, China in that way benefits from the sanctions. (China loses too, because oil prices are higher than otherwise would obtain.)

  85. James Canning says:


    Prince Turki al-Faisal, who may be the “most experienced spy on the planet”, conitnues to criticise Obama for failing to act on his “red line” regarding use of CW in Syria. I continue to be amazed you seem unhappy Obama did not attack Syria with cruise missiles.

  86. Karl.. says:

    Lol anyone want to bet that our brainwashed brit will tell you that “US and UK are trying to protect the palestinian people” next?

  87. fyi says:


    From the Christian Broadcasting Network:

  88. Jay says:

    fyi says:
    April 3, 2014 at 3:01 pm
    A concerned citizen says:
    April 3, 2014 at 12:02 pm

    I would like to second this viewpoint. Significant segments of Iranian leadership were disabused of the notion of a “deal” with the Axis after events in Libya. Any remaining doubts about unworkability of a “deal” were erased with the staging of events in Syria earlier, and now Ukraine. The overtures by the leadership in Iran are tactical – the same as those by the Axis. In Tehran it is firmly understood that the destruction of Iran remains to be the strategic goal of the Axis.

  89. James Canning says:


    Are you claiming Norway and Portugal are part of a conspiracy to “destroy” Iran? nonsense.

  90. James Canning says:


    Are you contesting my statement that the UK and the US are trying to influence the government of Burma, so that minority rights are protected? (Muslims)

  91. James Canning says:


    I asked you to be specific. Do you argue that the sanctions will remain in place even if Iran makes the deal with the P5+1?

  92. James Canning says:


    The US has been helping Israel to scr*w the Palestinians, for decades now. My position on this has been clear beyond any doubt.

  93. kooshy says:

    “they were interested in exploring if they could get anything of value to Iran in exchange for nominal concessions in the nuclear arena.”

    They way I understood anything of value to the Iranian side was if the west would understand (and stop) the extend of global destruction for promoting and instigating a region wide religious ethnical war through its regional state and jahadi clients.

    Iranians hoped the westerners could understand that spreading an interfaith Muslim war will not be limited to Muslims alone, as is now evident shortly and ultimately it becomes a full fledged religious war involving western religious values. Apparently lacking a better choice to balance their interests, the Brits , French , Saudis and Israelis refuse to participate. There is not much value in anything else the west can offer Iran.

    Iran doesn’t need any financial help or services from the west, other than that materials, products and services that is made in west are much more expensive than what can be obtained in the east with much better terms.

    Iran is cooperating on a hope that the west can understand that the value of calm, peace in the region is no less than that of a full political hegemony running client states. That era of western world order is now gone.

    This independent Iran is now the most powerful non hegemonic ( she promotes self determination plus an independent foreign policy based on national interest) state in the Middle East.

  94. James Canning says:


    Rouhani believes Iran’s economy will benefit greatly if sanctions are dropped and Iran’s oil and gas industries receive investment from western oil and gas companies. Surely he is correct.

  95. Jay says:

    James Canning says:
    April 3, 2014 at 6:38 pm


    I take you at your word: “Gaddafi’s own grossly incompetent PR brought disaster to himself and his family”.

    The Axis that hunted down Gaddafi and destroyed a nation because of his PR, will undoubtedly destroy Iran for what is prima facia is more than PR – a strong regional power with expanding industrial capacity and enormous economic and political potential.

    You need to stay consistent with your on-liners, so as to not get caught revealing the intentions of the Axis. Remember: incompetent PR can bring disaster by the Axis. Now that is nonsense!

  96. Don Bacon says:

    James Canning says:
    April 3, 2014 at 1:29 pm
    Don Bacon, I think it highly unlikely Iran will attack US troops.

    Come on, man, don’t play dumb on me. We were on Gareth Porter. We’re talking about the US vulnerability to an Iran counterattack should the US attack Iran as Dempsey suggests:
    “we have the capability to use a military option if the Iranians choose to stray off the diplomatic path” and “I think they are satisfied we have the capability. I think they believe we will use it.”

    In those circumstances do you think that Iran will just grin and take it? Iran claims it will do otherwise. Do you think they haven’t got the guts to counterattack?

    You go, Persians, I say.
    What do you say, James?
    Are Persians weaker than Brits?

    “We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.”

    Ring a bell, James?

  97. Don Bacon says:

    kooshy says:
    April 3, 2014 at 7:06 pm
    Iran is cooperating on a hope that the west can understand that the value of calm, peace in the region is no less than that of a full political hegemony running client states.

    Of course the US will understand no such thing. Its objectives are (1) instability and (2) regime change in Iran (and Syria).

    There is no profit in peace and Iran has to fall, the US says.

  98. kooshy says:

    “Of course the US will understand no such thing. Its objectives are (1) instability and (2) regime change in Iran (and Syria).”

    “There is no profit in peace and Iran has to fall, the US says.”

    That’s correct and I agree, but OTOH is US in peace has US been living in peace will US live in peace if there is no peace in Iran’s region, has US profited not having peace the answer to all is NO. The truth is that they are no better than they were 20 years ago their economies has suffered their hegemony on world politics and regional states has weakened. So one may occasionally talk to see if the setback has made a change? Iran is interested ask, now that your Syria plan didn’t work, Iran overtly deployed Hezbollah, do you want to continue this? That is why Iran is interested to find out (I agree that in just negotiations and exchanging usual pleasantries and or demonization there is not much cost if it delays global destruction) by testing and trying to see if now after roughly 12 years losing 2 major wars, blowback in Libya, Syria, and now Ukraine, if in any way it has resulted a reassessment a redirection in western world view, frankly after what happened in Ukraine I see no change except a renewed determination for an escalation beyond Iran and ME. Most interesting (alarming divide) was that none of BRICS countries voted for the US’ UNGA resolution on Ukraine. Meaning the world is roughly divided but with exception that the western half is voting with US under all kind of pressures, but on the Russian side Russia doesn’t have the political or economic power to twist votes her way.

  99. kooshy says:

    I mean if the AHs like Victoria Nuland and John Kerry had any brain they would have known or at least realized what that UNGA resolution has done to US’ international political position and standing.

  100. Empty says:

    James Canning,

    RE: You appear to assume Iran would “lose” an ability to build nukes, if it accepts the deal on offer from P5+1. This “loss” in fact would be a gain for Iran. If it eliminated temptation.

    You appear to be suggesting that genital mutilation is in fact a gain for the females since it eliminates temptation.

  101. Karl.. says:

    Any thoughts on the presidential election in Afghanistan this weekend?
    Will it affect Iran good/negative? 3-4 candidates are connected to the west..

  102. BiBiJon says:

    The Innocence of a bigot

    Check this out:

    According to ALISSA J. RUBIN of the NY Times, Marine Le Pen has given the far-right French National Front party a serious chance at the elections by dropping antisemitism, and xenophobia with “far more” acceptable Islamophobia.

    “Long prominent as the daughter of the National Front’s founder, Jean-Marie Le Pen, who is widely considered anti-Semitic and xenophobic, Ms. Le Pen now appears to be transforming the party from a fringe player in French politics into a far more central one. She has moderated her party’s image and positioned it to seize on widespread economic insecurity, deep anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim sentiment, and disgust with the political establishment.”


    Folks, expect as little as possible, if you cannot expect nothing at all from the Times. Oh, and don’t forget the blissfully self-unaware Alissa was the darling of LA Times before jumping to NY Times.

  103. BiBiJon says:

    The Jig is Up

    For the longest time, US/UK/French economies have been cushioned against high oil prices which adversely effects everybody else’s domestic economies by virtue of the fact that the Persian Gulf countries, aka oil wells with a flags, recycle the oil money in arms purchases and other investments in their master’s economies.

    Well, Russia, China and India may not be completely stupid after all. The Shi’a Crescent may become the equalizer in this oily game.

  104. Bussed-in Basiji says:

    Wouldn’t it be nice if US elites and their stooges in Iran had a clue…

    Triffin dilemma

  105. Bussed-in Basiji says:

    Yep, the great untold story of our era…calling it a “Depression” would be too honest, wouldn’t it?

    The Great Recession

  106. Bussed-in Basiji says:

    Cue villain music…

    Shadow banking system

  107. Don Bacon says:

    kooshy says:
    April 3, 2014 at 11:05 pm
    … has US profited not having peace the answer to all is NO.

    Here are the ten US companies that profit the most from war. These same companies (along with banks and others) control the US administration at all levels.

    1. Lockheed Martin (LMT) — aircraft, electronics, missiles, space
    Arm sales:$36.3 billion, total sales: $46.5 billion
    Gross profit: $2.7 billion, total workforce, 123,000
    Lockheed Martin notched $36.3 billion in sales in 2011, slightly higher than the $35.7 billion the company sold in 2010. The arms sales comprised 78% of the company’s total 2011 sales. Lockheed makes a wide range of products, including aircraft, missiles, unmanned systems and radar systems. The company and its employees have been concerned about the effects of the “fiscal cliff” and sequestration, the latter of which includes significant cuts to the U.S. Department of Defense. In the fall of 2012, the company planned on issuing layoff notices to all employees before backing down at the White House’s request.

    2. Boeing (BA) — aircraft, electronics, missiles, space
    Arm sales: $31.8 billion, total sales: $68.7 billion
    Gross profit: $4 billion, total workforce: 171,700
    Boeing was the second-largest U.S. government contractor in 2011, with about $21.5 billion worth of goods contracted. The Chicago-based company makes a wide range of arms, including strategic missile systems, laser and electro-optical systems and global positioning systems. Despite all these technologies, just 46% of the company’s total sales of $68.7 billion in 2011 came from arms. Boeing is the largest commercial airplane manufacturer in the world, making planes such as the 747, 757 and recently, the 787 Dreamliner. The company is also known for its space technology — Boeing had $1 billion worth of contracts with NASA in 2011.

    3. BAE Systems — aircraft, artillery, electronics, vehicles, missiles, ships
    Arm sales: $29.2 billion, total sales: $30.7 billion
    Gross profit: $2.3 billion, total workforce: 93,500
    BAE Systems was the largest non-U.S. company based on arms sales. Arms sales represented 95% of the company’s total sales in 2011 even though they were lower as a total of overall sales compared to the prior year. The products BAE sells include the L-ROD Bar Armor System that shields defense vehicles and the Hawk Advanced Jet Trainer that provides sophisticated simulation training for military pilots. In 2013, the company said its growth would likely come from outside the U.S. and Great Britain — its home market. BAE noted that its outlook for those two countries was “constrained,” likely due to the diminished presence in international conflicts and government budget cuts.

    4. General Dynamics (GD) — artillery, electronics, vehicles, small arms, ships
    Arm sales: $23.8 billion, total sales: $32.7 billion
    Gross profit: $2.5 billion, total workforce: 95,100
    With 18,000 transactions in 2011, General Dynamics was the third-largest contractor to the U.S. government. Of those contracts, approximately $12.9 billion worth went to the Navy, while an additional $4.6 billion went to the Army. The company’s arms sales in 2011 comprised 73% of total sales. Arms sales in 2011 were slightly below 2010 levels. The company makes a host of products, including electric boats, tracked and wheeled military vehicles, and battle tanks. The company announced layoffs in early March, blaming mandated federal budget cuts.

    5. Raytheon (RTN) — electronics, missiles
    Arm sales: $22.5 billion, total sales: $24.9 billion
    Gross profit: $1.9 billion, total workforce: 71,000
    Raytheon, based in Waltham, Mass., is one of the largest defense contractors in the U.S. The company makes the Tomahawk Cruise Missile, among others. Arms sales comprised about 90% of the company’s sales in 2011 though they as a total they were lower than in the prior year. The slide hasn’t let up. Total sales in 2012 fell 1.5%, and Raytheon is expecting sales to fall 3% in 2013, a projection which doesn’t take into account the effects of mandated budget cuts. The company can rely on overseas customers to somewhat offset weak sales at home. As of January, approximately 40% of the company’s backlog was booked overseas. The company expects approximately a 5% increase in international sales in 2013.

    6. Northrop Grumman (NOC) — aircraft, electronics, missiles, ships, space
    Arm sales: $21.4 billion, total sales: $26.4 billion
    Gross profit: $2.1 billion, total workforce: 72,500
    Northrop Grumman’s 2011 arms sales comprised about 81% of total sales even after a sharp decline in arms sales year over year. The company attributed the decline to reduced government spending on defense projects. Nevertheless, the company was more profitable than in the prior year.

    7. EADS — aircraft, electronics, missiles and space
    Arm sales: $16.4 billion, total sales: $68.3 billion
    Gross profit: $1.4 billion, total workforce: 133,120
    The European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company (EADS), based in the Netherlands, had sales in 2011 roughly in line with the prior year. Arms sales comprised just 24% of the company’s revenue. EADS and BAE Systems unsuccessfully attempted to merge for $45 billion in 2012, which would have created the world’s largest aerospace company. The deal collapsed in October after German Chancellor Angela Merkel expressed concerns about the merger.

    8. Finmeccanica — aircraft, artillery, engines, electronics, vehicles and missiles
    Arms sales, $14.6 billion, total sales: $24.1 billion
    Gross profit: $ -3.2 billion, total workforce: 70,470
    Italian company Finmeccanica makes a wide range of arms, including helicopters and security electronics. Nearly 60% of the company’s sales in 2011 were in arms. Finmeccanica lost $3.2 billion in 2011. The Italian company is currently fending off allegation that it paid bribes to win an approximately $750 million contract to provide 12 military helicopters to the Indian government in 2010. The then-head of the company, Giuseppe Orsi, was arrested in February but has denied wrongdoing. Other executives, including the head of the company’s helicopter unit, have been replaced, and the company has delayed the release of recent financial results.

    9. L-3 Communications (LLL) — electronics
    Arm sales: $12.5 billion, total sales: $15.2 billion
    Gross profit: $956 million, total workforce: 61,000
    Some 83% of L-3 Communications sales in 2011 came from arms sales, but this was down from what it sold the prior year. The company has four business segments: electronic systems; aircraft modernization and maintenance; national security solutions; and command, control, communications, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. Among many products manufactured, the company has become a major provider of unmanned aircraft systems.

    10. United Technologies ( UTX) — aircraft, electronics, engines
    Arm sales: $11.6 billion, total sales: $58.2 billion
    Gross profit: $5.3 billion, total workforce: 199,900
    United Technologies makes a wide range of arms — notably military helicopters, including the Black Hawk helicopter for the U.S. Army and the Seahawk helicopter for the U.S. Navy. The company was the biggest employer in the top 10 though arms sales accounted for just 20% of revenue. UTX also produces elevators, escalators, air-conditioners and refrigerators. International sales comprised 60% of the company’s revenue in 2012.
    — Based on a SIPRI report reviewd by 24/7 Wall St. and reported by USAToday.

  108. Karl.. says:

    Don Bacon

    ” control the US administration at all levels.”

    How are they doing that?

  109. Bussed-in Basiji says:

    And of course it would be blasphemy to suggest that while other nations’ economies were going to down the shithole during “The Great Recession”, Iran’s economy- yep, during Mahmoud’s watch- was doing relatively better.

    Perish the thought! That would be against what Rohani, Velayati and Rezai hammered into us during the presidential debates, right?

  110. kooshy says:

    Don Bacon says:
    April 4, 2014 at 9:57 am


    I said US not certain US corporations, US meaning a country that bonds 300 million inhabitants with national interests, if their interests are diverted by certain foreign or domestic interests due to their negligence that is a problem they can and should solve, this is not something Iran or ME or Russia can do for them, in this equation US population are also losers, like Iraqis, Afghans and Ukrainians, with the difference that in the eye of the world they are also liable guilty party to be blamed.

  111. fyi says:

    kooshy says:

    April 3, 2014 at 7:06 pm

    Axis Powers are developed countries with robust scientific, philosophic, political and military capabilities.

    In every parameter of civilizational capabilities they surpass Iran, China, India and others by several orders of magnitude.

    A religious war for them is something that is fought on someone else’s turf; it is fought in sub-Saharan Africa, in the Near East, on the territory of the Russia Federation and China and India.

    They do not feel threatened substantially by that.

    Unless and until the Shia Crescent, or China, or India match them in every parameter of power, the Axis Powers will continue on their present course since “War is Cheap and Peace is Expensive” for them.

    Since Iran once again has assumed the mantle of an independent geopolitical power, she has to expand her capacities in all those parameters of power, including production of industrial, scientific, philosophic, cultural, and military goods.

    This is work of decades, no doubt.

  112. Don Bacon says:

    kooshy says:
    April 4, 2014 at 10:46 am

    Don I said US not certain US corporations

    The point I am making is that there is no difference in the two.

  113. Don Bacon says:

    The US (uniquely in the world) became a militarized state beginning with the National Security Act of 1947, which led to the rise of a national security bureaucracy within the executive branch. American thinking about national security was transformed by this Act and the military establishment rose to prominence, even predominance, in American life.

    This domestic military predominance, combined with US world hegemony with its world-wide combatant commands and US bases overseas has also promoted the profitability of US corporations which provide the materiel and services that the US military empire requires, and along with this comes the political contributions and local military bases that sustain militarization and war as necessary US profit centers.

    The best evidence of this is the number of wars the US has engaged in, both directly and by proxy, during its time as a nation (and even before, against native Americans) but especially since 1947.

  114. Bussed-in Basiji says:

    SL: Building a new Islamic civilization, Oct. 2012.

    “Comprehensive progress can be considered as efforts to build a new Islamic civilization. After all, the Islamic conception of progress has a manifestation in the outside world. Let us say that the goal of the Iranian nation and the Islamic Revolution is to build a new Islamic civilization, which is an accurate evaluation. This new civilization has two important parts. One part is the necessary instruments and the other part is the content and essence. It is necessary to pay attention to both parts.”

  115. kooshy says:

    Don Bacon says:
    April 4, 2014 at 11:32 am

    “The point I am making is that there is no difference in the two.”


    Sorry to say my experience says that is view point of a losers who gave up who see no light at the end, that is exactly what one would hear before the Iranian revolution (they have the control of everything and everyone in this country, nothing and nobody can change it) this I heard in summer of 78 from a relative who was well to do and Dec. of 78 left to live in Paris. who thought in span of few weeks after Victoria did Europe Ukraine will lose a territory , don’t give up things can happen, Jewish lobby or MIC can be defeated and this country once again be allowed to return to democracy.

    In my opinion despite all the destruction the US/West has bestowed on Iran since the 79 revolution still Iran was very fortunate to be able to pull and keep her revolution and throw out the foreign and domestic tyrants, with what I had seen in Iran I see the street openions are changing her in the US, hopefully not violently.

  116. kooshy says:

    “Axis Powers are developed countries with robust scientific, philosophic, political and military capabilities.”

    But that’s not enough if only these were measures of societal progress than the USSR wouldn’t fall. The problem that the west is beginning to encounter is socioeconomic, especially with her upcoming youth, the street mentality has changed, they are becoming socially unattached without hope for future they feel useless, they are disinterested to participate in political or social events, the western streets now days has gave up feeling, and that’s the beginning of social destabilization. No scientific progress can full or fix this problem except a social restructure which is a revolution.

  117. James Canning says:

    Don Bacon,

    You see “no difference” or distinction between “US corporations” and the US itself? Nonsense.

  118. James Canning says:


    Is Russia an “Axis Power”?

  119. James Canning says:


    You compare a potential nuclear weapons programme with a certain private part of a female?

  120. James Canning says:

    Don Bacon,

    Obama does not want war with Iran, and he does not seek regime change in Iran. If Iran fails to make a deal with the P5+1, problems likely will ensure.

    I take it you do not wish to see a deal between Iran and the P5+1. Correct?

  121. fyi says:

    kooshy says:

    April 4, 2014 at 1:08 pm

    In regards to USSR, I think their labor productivity was low and prevented their progress.

    And then there were those constituent republics of USSR: Georgia, Armenia, Muslim republics – that were a net drain on the Slavic people of USSR.

    In regards to US and EU, the situation among them is still superior to Near East or China or Malaysia or All of Africa as people struggle and risk their lives to get to those countries.

    You should not believe everything you read about them…

  122. Karl.. says:

    Will our brit say that US dont want regime change in Cuba too? Ridiculous.

  123. fyi says:

    kooshy says:

    April 4, 2014 at 1:08 pm

    Evidently, Africans have no desire to get into Iran; they prefer Spain and EU.

    And, furthermore, that might be preferable to having large numbers of Africans in Iran; Heaven only knows what could happen.

  124. Karl.. says:


    No surprise France have become very racist past 10-15 years. But they love butchering people in africa and middle east.

  125. Bussed-in Basiji says:


    Don’t believe everything you read…history is filled with “advanced”,”still superior” civilizations being pummeled by “barbarians”…(does he realize how dickish he comes across using words like “superior”?)

    Putin throwing down the gauntlet and challenging decadent western “civilization”.

    Looks like “Rome” and “Persia” are on the same side in the divine struggle against Sodom and Gomorrah.

    Vladimir Putin, Christian Crusader?


    “Crimea, said Putin, “is the location of ancient Khersones, where Prince Vladimir was baptized. His spiritual feat of adopting Orthodoxy predetermined the overall basis of the culture, civilization and human values that unite the peoples of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus.”

    Russia is a Christian country, Putin was saying. This speech recalls last December’s address where the former KGB chief spoke of Russia as standing against a decadent West:

    Many Euro-Atlantic countries have moved away from their roots, including Christian values. Policies are being pursued that place on the same level a multi-child family and a same-sex partnership, a faith in God and a belief in Satan. This is the path to degradation.

    Heard any Western leader, say, Barack Obama, talk like that lately?”

  126. kooshy says:

    “Evidently, Africans have no desire to get into Iran; they prefer Spain and EU.’

    Fyi, Iran can’t afford or need any more cheap migrant labor; the priority correctly should go to Afghans, keeping and supporting Afghanistan politically and economically is necessary for Iran and her neighbor’s security, and the region of Iran’s market influence
    So I don’t think anyone in Iran is losing sleep that the Africans don’t want to go to Iran.

  127. James Canning says:


    Very large numbers of Africans cross the Red Sea to Yemen, and then try to get into Saudi Arabia.

  128. James Canning says:

    Bussed-In Basiji,

    Putin has an especially high regard for Tsar Nicholas I. Crimean War resulted in part from his efforts to protect Orthodox Christians in the Levant.

  129. James Canning says:


    Many Muslims in France are able to integrate with the broader society. Choice of given name is a significant factor.

  130. James Canning says:


    I fairly often condemn the foolish US sanctions against Cuba, etc etc etc. Sheer idiocy, and worse, in my view.

  131. James Canning says:


    Yes, low labour productivity was a very large problem in the Soviet Union. Systemic corruption also hindered economic growth. Putin notes that too much of the economy was given over to the military.

  132. nico says:

    “On the heels of Russia’s potential “holy grail” gas deal with China, the news of a Russia-Iran oil “barter” deal, it appears the US is starting to get very concerned about its almighty Petrodollar

    That would be a real case for WWIII

  133. Rd. says:

    Karl.. says:

    ” control the US administration at all levels.”
    How are they doing that?

    The big business – government revolving door!!! Citizens united, etc..

  134. fyi says:

    kooshy says:

    April 4, 2014 at 2:24 pm

    Charity is the highest form of Love.

  135. Rd. says:

    James Canning says:

    “ Putin notes that too much of the economy was given over to the military.”

    You mean just like US giving too much to MIC!, are you suggesting US is domed just like CCCP!! brilliant.. I knew you had a brain somewhere, even if it is in the backside.

  136. Jay says:

    Don Bacon,
    Let me complete James Canning thoughts on: April 4, 2014 at 1:30 pm

    Here is James’ assertion:
    “Obama does not want war with Iran, and he does not seek regime change in Iran.”
    But he fails to complete his thought as he did in the case of Libya. Here is the second part…
    If Iran’s own grossly incompetent PR does not bring disaster to herself and her population.

    You see, James believes that bad PR is sufficient cause for unleashing death and destruction.

  137. Don Bacon says:

    nico says:
    April 4, 2014 at 2:46 pm

    Since you think that US sanctions against the reported Russia-Iran oil barter deal is a case for WWIII, perhaps you could provide some links to US statements on said reported sanctions to support the scary upper-case headlines you trumpeted?

  138. kooshy says:

    Bussed-in Basiji says:
    April 4, 2014 at 2:22 pm

    BiB Jaan

    For some observers who are living in the west the structural destruction is visible from within. The base of this destruction is not due to lack of technology or martial productivity, this destruction is first and most coming due social inequality a new version of class and race superiority by a mall ruling elite who are not allowing political and social participation based on equality . This has demised the younger generation’s hope for prosperity and future or even family values and the very natural principles of living, the structure and believing in need for reproduction. In western societies this lack of prosperity and hope for future will eventually result in low productivity and social instability.

    OTOH, Is easy to print money for a while and subsidize and spend on your population making them lazy and not willing to work, and bring in subsidize foreign labor till it all rotten out, but then when no longer you can print or barrow, it comes the time when you will start having internal problems with your own sons and daughters.

    “More Americans see middle class status slipping”
    WASHINGTON (AP) — A sense of belonging to the middle class occupies a cherished place in America.”

  139. Karl.. says:

    Don Bacon
    April 4, 2014 at 4:18 pm

    Likewise could you provide a source for my question @ April 4, 2014 at 10:28 am?

  140. nico says:

    Don Bacon says:
    “Since you think that US sanctions against the reported Russia-Iran oil barter deal is a case for WWIII, perhaps you could provide some links to US statements on said reported sanctions to support the scary upper-case headlines you trumpeted?”

    Trumpeted ?
    Ahahah. Does my post reached the limit of your free speech religion ?

    You take it or leave it… I do not care a whit, indeed.

  141. Bussed-in Basiji says:


    Yes, you can only fool so many people for so long with the whole “American Dream” bullshit…especially naive immigrants who fall for that old lie more easily.

    If I had a dollar for every Iranian friend/relative who emigrated to the US and calls/emails asking about returning to Iran…especially the older ones facing shitty retirement.

    The reality of America was always more like this…in the words of marhum Johnny Cash:

    Well, you wonder why I always dress in black,
    Why you never see bright colors on my back,
    And why does my appearance seem to have a somber tone.
    Well, there’s a reason for the things that I have on.

    I wear the black for the poor and the beaten down,
    Livin’ in the hopeless, hungry side of town,
    I wear it for the prisoner who has long paid for his crime,
    But is there because he’s a victim of the times.

    I wear the black for those who never read,
    Or listened to the words that Jesus said,
    About the road to happiness through love and charity,
    Why, you’d think He’s talking straight to you and me.

    Well, we’re doin’ mighty fine, I do suppose,
    In our streak of lightnin’ cars and fancy clothes,
    But just so we’re reminded of the ones who are held back,
    Up front there ought ‘a be a Man In Black.

    I wear it for the sick and lonely old,
    For the reckless ones whose bad trip left them cold,
    I wear the black in mournin’ for the lives that could have been,
    Each week we lose a hundred fine young men.

    And, I wear it for the thousands who have died,
    Believen’ that the Lord was on their side,
    I wear it for another hundred thousand who have died,
    Believen’ that we all were on their side.

    Well, there’s things that never will be right I know,
    And things need changin’ everywhere you go,
    But ’til we start to make a move to make a few things right,
    You’ll never see me wear a suit of white.

    Ah, I’d love to wear a rainbow every day,
    And tell the world that everything’s OK,
    But I’ll try to carry off a little darkness on my back,
    ‘Till things are brighter, I’m the Man In Black

  142. nico says:

    “Lawmakers call on oil and gas producers to ditch ‘dirty, bloody dollar’”

  143. Don Bacon says:

    So forget what nico posted on US sanctions against reported Russia – Iran oil barter. There is no such thing and nico was fantasizing.

  144. Don Bacon says:

    I did answer you here.

    Don Bacon says:
    April 4, 2014 at 11:43 am

    What else do you need to learn?

  145. nico says:

    “In response to economic sanctions of the West, Russia intends to switch to rubles in its deals with European partners instead of dollars and euros. State-owned export companies are said to be the first on the line to do it.The head of the state-owned VTB Bank, Andrei Kostin, voiced the idea on the eve of the Congress of the Association of Russian banks in Moscow. He believes that one should launch the process to switch to foreign settlements in rubles immediately. This is a primary task for the banking system, the Central Bank and the government of the Russian Federation, he said. According to him, in this case Russia will be able to “reduce dependence on the vagaries of the US and EU authorities” that continue to threaten Russia with sanctions. “It has been a month already when senior Western executives call to isolate Russia, by virtually destroying the Russian banking sector with the use of modern “nuclear weapon” in finance – dollar settlements,” said Kostin.”

  146. James Canning says:

    The Wall Street Journal today has a brief interview with Donald Rumsfeld. Asked if the Vietnam War offered any lessons, he replied: “That some things don’t work out. If that’s a lesson.”

  147. James Canning says:

    John Kerry is quoted in the New York Times today: “I am really sorry that we got delayed [in meeting a group at US embassy Algiers]. I had a phone call, and it was one of those calls where you can’t get the other person to realize the call is over.” That “other person”? Bibi Netanyahu.

  148. James Canning says:


    Rouhani’s PR has been very good. I’m surprised you haven’t noticed.

  149. James Canning says:

    In the New Statesman (28 March – 3 April), William Dalrymple has a very fine review of Scott Anderson’s new book on Lawrence of Arabia (“Lawrence in Arabia”). The review’s title” “Through two veils”.

  150. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Why Turkey Was Planning a False Flag Operation in Syria

    Again, there is no way this could have been planned without US permission straight from Obama – unless it was leaked before it got that far.

  151. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Syrian opposition accuses Assad of new poison attack

    Still trying to get that Syrian war started…

  152. kooshy says:

    nico says:
    April 4, 2014 at 5:16 pm

    In my opinion what you said is more and more is taking shape now, I think we are moving to a sort of by polar financial world on one side we will have the western financial block under US financial and security leadership consisting of all the usual US satrapies as well as ineffective uninfluential small statelets and islands. On the opposing side there will be everyone else, with no formal structural alliance and a lose lead by at times opportunistic BRICS political and financial stand. Interestingly the current distribution of the energy BTU value on both camps is in par. When the total BTU value slips from the western/US controlled camp the dollar fiat status will change.

  153. nico says:

    kooshy says:
    “In my opinion what you said is more and more is taking shape now”

    That is geopolitical convulsion.
    Due western overall bankruptcy.
    The US debt doubled in the last 7 years or so under Obama.
    Meaning in 7 years the debt grew more than in the debt generated in the whole US history.
    But the FT says there is no inflation.
    Sure the inflation is exported outside of the US due to USD reserve status.
    Meaning China labour and other Oil exporting economies are financing the US standard of living with credit that will never be repaid.
    The US are finished economically in the current globalized format and it is matter of time for the globalized economy to disolve.

    That is convulsion.
    Whether it will calm down this time or the next time again nobody can tell.
    But surely China, Russia and Iran or independent players and will not be slaves to a bankrupt USD for eternity.

    Whether one believe in it or not is not a matter discussed in the FT or reuters.
    The collapse is near for sure with globalized economy shrinking and reformating and geolopotical desintegration.

    Whether one believe the US will make threat to avoid collapse… Sure they will.
    But disguising it under heavy curtains of propoganda.

  154. James Canning says:

    Gideon Rachman has interesting observations in the FT online: “Why Europe can’t think strategically”). FT.COM/theworld (no paywall)

  155. James Canning says:

    David Gardner had a good piece in the FT April 4th, on the US as “crooked lawyer” for Israel. Gardner touches on a number of blunders by Obama.

  156. Karl.. says:

    Don Bacon

    Well as I said, a source that these companies “control” the government.

  157. nico says:

    Sure the US is theatening the Russiq over the Iran barter deal.
    As much as the US blackmailing the whole world with their deeply imoral secundary sanctions and World economic
    But for such exceptionalist idiot as Bacon there is no pressure or threat…

    M. Bacon, since when have you ever made a interesting contribution to this site ?
    Well yes, you never did even emiit a single interesting opinion or analysis.

    You better STFU just like Canning.
    Your opinion worth as much.

    “According to one of the interlocutors, this is not just persuasion, but “hard pressure” combined with the threat to impose economic sanctions against Russian companies and financial institutions that will participate in such a transaction.
    Moscow and Tehran are discussing the possibility of delivering Iranian oil to Russia (up to 500,000 barrels per day) and Russian goods and equipment to Iran.  While Reuters was the first to report on the impending transaction, Kommersant received confirmation of this information from the Russian government.
    Developing Russia-Iran relations The White House and the US State Department made tough statements, declaring that the agreement would be contrary to the existing sanctions against Iran and to the interim arrangement on the Iranian nuclear program.Russian government sources disagree – Moscow considers the US sanctions against Tehran to be illegal, and the agreements on the Iranian nuclear program to have nothing to do with Russian-Iranian economic cooperation.”

  158. James Canning says:


    US pressure often is applied, to enforce US sanctions by interfering with commerce in other countries. Companies in the UK have difficulty making deals in Cuba or with companies that do business with Cuba, even though Britain has no sanctions against Cuba.

  159. Bussed-in Basiji says:

    Oh oh! You just know Imam (r) wouldn’t be pleased at all, whatsoever…

    This is gonna be a one-term administration…you heard it here first.

    Brookings and Maloney praising Jenabe Agha Zanganeh

    In Sanctions Exit Strategy, Iran’s “Second Foreign Minister” Takes Center Stage

    Apparently he was supposed to meet Hillary Clinton’s husband in Vienna a few months ago, but Allah (awj) foiled the plan as only He could.

  160. James Canning says:

    Boeing will be selling spare parts to Iran for repairs to civilian aircraft.

  161. nico says:

    James Canning says:
    “US pressure often is applied, to enforce US sanctions by interfering with commerce in other countries. Companies in the UK have difficulty making deals in Cuba or with companies that do business with Cuba, even though Britain has no sanctions against Cuba.”

    The US consider themselves the master of the world and wannq dictate everyone actions with cohercion and tthreat.
    The US are simply a thug country.
    But of couse with the called “freedom of speech” religion and other “humanitarian” supremacists. Ahaha.
    Bacon should keep reading USA TODAY crap and stop humiliating himself on this site.
    People here know better.

    The other day US MSM crap and Official News Agencies signaled that US lawmakers were shocked by the new Iranian envoy at the UN… Because of his so called participation to the US embassy seizure during the revolution…

    I was truly shocked by the US hubris.
    After so much US crimes and wars. With all those US criminals in official position today…
    And the propaganda tools aka the MSM and cohort have the nerve to provide their opinion about other countries representatives.

    Truly MSM nutcases.

    And the same ones are accusing Putin to be a dictator and a butcher…

    If I might humbly provide an advice here. Just throw away your TV set and stop reading MSM.
    That is crap concentrate.

    I personnaly used to read several news paper every and each day when I was 20.
    But it has been more than 10 years that I just throw all that shit away.

  162. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Turkey returns artillery fire into Syria

    Still trying to get that Syrian war started…

  163. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    April 5, 2014 at 1:21 pm

    US Pressure, as you put it, is illegal under WTO rules.

    US and EU have shredded NPT and WTO and they are running around complaining about the International Law’s violation in Crimea.

    There is no jus nor the possibility of creating one any time soon as long as Axis Powers see fit to march down the path that they are.

    Other states are following suite.

  164. fyi says:

    Richard Steven Hack says:

    April 5, 2014 at 3:55 pm

    What else can a man-servant do but to carry the Master’s instructions?

    “We cannot let Iran win in Syria” – so said Mr. Kissinger.

  165. Karl.. says:


    And in EU they still try to get that war started.

  166. nico says:

    Don Bacon says:

    About Dempsey saying “we have the capability to use a military option if the Iranians choose to stray off the diplomatic path”…

    Sure the US would use nukes. Whatever the bad consequences for the US and the international system.
    That is simple as that.

    However the Iraninan said they will not be intimidated by such threat. No matter what.

    And BiB said that Iran has means to retaliate anyway.

  167. kooshy says:

    Karl.. says:
    April 5, 2014 at 4:41 pm

    “And in EU they still try to get that war started.”

    Fortunately for the world the EU countries don’t have the authority , means or even the fuel to start any major war specially with Russia .

    To me is really sad (personal experience) that Europeans refuse to believe that they no longer have any political or even financial sovereignty. Europe has become lazy and used to getting subsidized security, On terms of doing wars they only can do obligatory symbolic cooperation to show support for their owner. As seen in this recent events a rather low rank official, the assistant secretary of the state can order EU’s intreats to be f@@ked any time she feels for it, and no one in Europe resent what she said which supposedly is the US policy, that is how low EU’s dignity is now globally displayed.

    Slaves, or even Nokars can’t be allowed to have dignity if they do they brake out. Today’s lazy high expecting Europe loves to be US’s Nokar for free security and financial support buying luxury products that have no competition.

  168. Nasser says:

    “We are in a pre-World War situation, but because of nuclear weapons we will not descend into it,” he says, pausing to thank the Soviet scientists who left modern Russia with its atomic deterrent. “But there could be a military, or a quasi-military, situation.” – Sergey Karaganov

  169. Nasser says:

    Sorry I posted the wrong link above. The one I had in mind was this:–16532

  170. James Canning says:


    Your claim the US would use nukes on a first-strike basis is RUBBISH.

  171. James Canning says:


    NPT has not been “shredded”. One can of course question fairness etc in its application here and there.

  172. James Canning says:


    I have many friends in Britain who think the US acts improperly in various matters. Which of course is obvious.

  173. humanist says:

    On Gareth Porter’s new book entitled Manufactured Crisis:

    Joseph Goebbels the Nazi Propaganda Minister once said “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it”

    I think Goebbels and Nazis couldn’t fathom the dynamics of history which already had established: “eventually big liars end up Big Losers”. The following popular proverb also accords with the same concept: “Lies might fool some people forever, Lies might fool all the people for a brief period of time but Lies can never fool all the people forever”.

    Abundant examples show that, often the short sighted Israeli warmongers, who have held high places employ different Nazi tactics (watch The Gatekeepers, there you’ll hear the shamed confessions of some of frustrated Israeli officials who notice such exact equivalence).

    This is expected. Both Nazis and Zionists believe they are special people (Aryan race versus Chosen or super intelligent People). Both are extraordinarily Self-Righteous (Mein Kampf texts versus Israeli claims they and only they have the right to preemptively clobber their victims. One Knesset member once said “since we are 100% right our enemies must be 100% wrong). Bout are outstandingly apathetic, racist, ruthless and remorseless. Both try to fully control nearly all kinds of media to indoctrinate the masses. Both bribe and most probably blackmail or coerce officials … and so on.

    The bogus crisis of Iranian nuclear scare is indeed a colossal Goebbelsian Lie perpetually propagated by the same type of myopic Israelis as the Gatekeepers. The lie succeeded to fool countless millions for decades, psychologically conditioning them to approve another heinous war, this time with Iran.

    Although during that period there were quite a number of direct or indirect knockdowns on the validity of the crisis (such as NIEs, countless compelling writings by a few incorruptible analysts, Manning’s leaks and so on), none of them noticeably changed the behavior of the Israelis.

    Now Gareth Porter’s GREAT book might change that, smash the fraudulent crisis hasbara hard or even crucially shake the foundation of the Zionist propaganda machinery.

    As a part of deceptive tactics the Israelis were claiming the Iranian nuclear bomb is not only a threat to the world but specifically is an existential threat to them. Now (mainly because of the book?) history is sprouting a reverse reality: The Iranian non-existent bomb could have been a threat to no one and the real existential threat to Israelis was the accumulative effect of their own actions, ie the consequences of their own brutal and deceptive Nazi style “modus operandi”

    Great book? Yes indeed. This book would further invigorate the current movements that are dedicated to halt all ongoing Israeli aggressions including the ending of their heinous multi-generational atrocities in Palestine.

    In am convinced since the Israelis swim against the torrents of “History”, sooner or later, the cumulative effect of these uni-directional forces will result in the collapse of their apartheid state. Just the certain influence of the book on that collapse makes it quite exemplary..

    Who is Gareth Porter? Gareth’s resume flashes out as the image of a RARE, courageous and highly respectable historian and journalist. His writings on exposing official lies that are detrimental to our humanity tell it all.

    Whenever I have read any of his writings I have felt a compound sense of deep respect, salutation, hope and comradery since the sensation that, in this Kafkaesque world, there are intelligent scholars whose honesty and integrity can not be bought, no matter how high the price is quite uplifting….and so gratifying,

    Hats off….