The Next Rounds of Nuclear Talks with Iran and Their Strategic Ramifications

New Iranian President Rowhani meets with diplomat Zarif

It seems ever clearer that Iran and the P5+1 are headed toward new rounds of nuclear talks this fall.  For those thinking through the prospects for these negotiations and their larger strategic ramifications, a couple of recent interviews published in Iran Review provide important input. 

One is with the Islamic Republic’s new foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif.  To read the whole interview (which we very much recommend), “It’s US Turn to Show Political Resolve,” see here.  Below, we highlight some exchanges that bear directly on Tehran’s approach to nuclear diplomacy and to interaction with the United States.        

As the Islamic Republic’s new President, Hassan Rohani, has suggested and as Dr. Zarif acutely understands, there is a deal to be had on the nuclear issue—a deal grounded in international law as embodied in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).  In this deal, the United States and its Western partners would recognize Iran’s right—as a sovereign state and as a party to the NPT—to enrich uranium under international safeguards, in return for greater transparency regarding the Islamic Republic’s nuclear activities

We anticipate that the thrust of Iranian diplomacy in the upcoming rounds of nuclear negotiations with the P5+1 will be to make it plain for all the world to see that Tehran is fully prepared to solve the nuclear issue on this basis, putting the onus on those unwilling to accept such a solution—the United States and its British and French hangers-on—why they won’t accept an approach grounded in reason and international legitimacy.  In this light, consider the following exchanges from Dr. Zarif’s interview with Iran Review (emphases added): 

Q:  In his first press conference after the inauguration ceremony, President [Hassan Rouhani] said resumption of the nuclear negotiations with the P5+1 group will be one of his priorities. Do you have any new plan or proposal for the resumption of these talks?

A:  There have been discussions inside the administration with Mr. President about how to follow up on the country’s nuclear rights and reduce unjust sanctions which have been imposed against the Islamic Republic of Iran.  The basis for our work is to insist on the rights of Iran and do away with logical concerns of the international communityAs the Supreme Leader and the President have emphasized, it would be easy to achieve this goal provided that the main goal of all involved parties is to find a solution to the nuclear issue.  We believe that finding a solution to the nuclear issue needs political will.  On the side of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the election of Dr. Rouhani—in view of his past track records with regard to this case—proves that the Iranian people are willing for the nuclear issue to reach a final solution with power and strength and within a reasonable time frame.  We wish the opposite side will also have the necessary political resolve for the resolution of the nuclear issue.  In that case, we would have no concern with respect to assuring the world about the peaceful nature of our nuclear energy program because according to the fatwa [religious decree] issued by the Supreme Leader and based on the strategic needs of Iran, nuclear weapons have no place in our national security doctrine and are even detrimental to our national security…

The main issue is whether the necessary political resolve [among member states of the P5+1 group] will be present and whether the US government is ready to stand in the face of the interest groups and prevent the whole case to be steered by radical groups?

Q:  Will you agree to engage in bilateral direct talks with the United States if such a thing is proposed to you on the sidelines of such international meetings as the United Nations General Assembly sessions or negotiations with the P5+1 group?

A:  The Supreme Leader has made his opinion about [direct] talks [with the United States] public time and time again.  Negotiations, per se, is not an issue here, but the main issue is what topics are going to be discussed in such negotiations and how much political determination exists in the opposite side for the settlement of the existing problemsThe main issue is will such a political resolve take shape and whether the US administration is actually ready to stand up to radical groups and prevent such radical groups from setting the course of the whole issue?  This will be in fact a litmus test for the government of the United States to show its readiness to play a more serious role and pave the way for the achievement of a final solution

In my opinion, political will is the precondition for the improvement of relations.  The methods [to do this] can be discussed, but what is necessary is the emergence of such a political will and its manifestation in practice.  In that case, various methods can be used to achieve goals.  At a time that it is not still clear whether such a political will exists or not, the efficiency of using new methods cannot be clearly decided.  In Iran, the election of Mr. Rouhani shows that people have made up their mind to engage in constructive interaction with the world.  Mr. Rouhani, on the other hand, has shown through his words and deeds that he has the necessary political will to do this.  Now, the important requisite is for such a political will to take shape on the other side of the equation.”

Of course, the Obama administration claims that it has all the political will in the world to reach a deal if Iran is “serious” in its approach to negotiations.  But this formulation obscures, deliberately, that the litmus test of “seriousness” on the Iranian nuclear issue is openness to a deal based on the NPT, including explicit recognition of Iran’s right to safeguarded enrichment.  And by this litmus test, the Islamic Republic is absolutely serious about reaching an agreement; the United States and its European partners are not

Interestingly, in assessing the prospects for diplomatic progress, Dr. Zarif draws a distinction between “the U.S. government” and “interest groups” and “radical groups” out to derail possibilities for success—a distinction he amplifies in this exchange: 

Q:  We have witnessed the emergence of anti-Iran currents at both the US Congress and Senate concurrent with the election and inauguration of President Hassan Rouhani’s administration.  On the other hand, Israelis claim in their propaganda campaigns that the administration in Iran has changed, but policies are the same as before.  What is your plan to offset such radical moves?

A:  The warmongering elements are apparently concerned about reduction of problems and are clearly doing their utmost to resort to any pretext in order to intensify the crisis with Iran.  The important point is that decision-makers in Europe and the United States should come to grips with the real nature and goals of warmongers.  On this basis, they should not allow a warmongering and tension-seeking agenda—which aims to put unjust pressures which have no place in international law on the Iranian nation—to prevent them from taking advantage of opportunities which can be used to find solutions to existing problems.”   

While we hope that Dr. Zarif’s scenario of U.S. decision-makers resisting “a warmongering and tension-seeking agenda” to find real solutions on the nuclear issue is realized, we are pessimistic about the chances for this—for, in our view, U.S. decision-makers have internalized warmongering and tension-seeking in their own strategic agendas.  And, as Hillary pointed out on Russia Today just a couple of days after Rohani’s inauguration, see here, “the Iranians are coming into this with open eyes, understanding the dynamics of the U.S. system”; as we have pointed out before, there is mounting skepticism in Tehran that the United States, even during the presidency of Barack Hussein Obama, is prepared to deal with the Islamic Republic as an enduring and legitimate entity representing legitimate national interests

On why such skepticism is well warranted, some exchanges from Iran Review’s recent interview with Lawrence Wilkerson, retired U.S. Army Colonel and former chief of staff to U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, see here, are illuminating (again, emphases added):    

Q:  In his State of the Union Address on January 29, 2002, President George W. Bush talked of an Axis of Evil which stretches from North Korea to the Middle East and encompasses Iran and Iraq.  He called Iran a threat to the international peace and security.  This is while Iran’s former president Mohammad Khatami who was a reformist figure with a reconciliatory foreign policy which was based on détente and easing the tensions with the West had cooperated with the United States and the EU on a number of issues and his promotion of the idea of the Dialogue of Civilization was embraced internationally.  Don’t you think this branding Iran a member of the so-called Axis of Evil was a strategic mistake by President Bush?

A:  This was a strategic mistake if the strategic objective one imagines the U.S. pursuing is advancing the fundamental interests of the U.S., its allies, and friends in the world and, importantly, if one’s overall objective is world peace.  It was not a strategic mistake if the strategic objectives of the U.S. were turmoil in western Asia, support of Israel’s continued aggression, increased U.S. control over the region’s oil reserves, and a state of perpetual warTwo of the three members of the Axis harbor close to a quarter of world oil reserves; Israel’s aggression has not ceased—indeed, it has increased; and the region is in turmoilThe U.S. is in an interminable state of warThe Axis of Evil speech helped to achieve these results.  Some people in the U.S.—and Israel—wanted these results.

Q:  So you think certain extremist elements in Washington and Tel Aviv benefit from confrontation between Iran and the United States.  What about the state of bilateral relations between the two nations under President Khatami?  He had signaled his willingness to engage in bilateral negotiations with the United States when he was in power.  He was one of the first world leaders who sent a message of condolences to the U.S. government following the 9/11 tragedy.  However, it seems that President Bush was not willing to react positively as he turned down Khatami’s message.  Can we consider President Bush guilty for the failure of the attempts to bring Iran and the United States to the negotiation table?

A:  President George W. Bush was not sufficiently knowledgeable to have contrived to produce failed diplomatic circumstances with Iran.  His Vice President, Richard Cheney, worked to produce this failure.  Cheney maintained an adamant policy that there would be no negotiations with Iran.  He sold this policy to the unwitting President. Later, in 2003, when there was again an opportunity to start meaningful negotiations with Tehran, Cheney had captured the entire government with his views.  Even Secretary of State Colin Powell opposed the Iranian initiative in 2003.  See my answer to your question number one:  Cheney is one of those who wanted the results I have described in my answer.

Q:  Prominent investigative journalists and political commentators Seymour Hersh and Glenn Greenwald have released reliable evidence that CIA, with the help of Israel and Saudi Arabia, has been providing arms, ammunitions and financial support to the exiled anti-Iranian terrorist cult Mujahedin-e-Khalq in the past 10 years in a bid to impose political pressure on Iran.  Do you confirm these clandestine and underground ties?

A:  I cannot confirm these ties because I have not had an active security clearance since 2005.  However, if I were a betting man, I would bet that what Hersh and Greenwald asserted is correct.

Q:  Let’s get to the next question.  The U.S. played its last card in 2012 by removing the name of MKO from its list of foreign terrorist organizations.  What’s your viewpoint on this controversial decision?  Isn’t it a dualistic and somewhat hypocritical approach toward terrorism and human rights?

A:  The U.S. move to delist the MEK was a very hypocritical move—and even a very stupid moveIt was based on a passionate but irrational dependence on Israel, large amounts of money changing hands, and an utterly unreasonable desire to punish Iran through any means possible.  The MEK are bloodthirsty terrorists.  But the U.S. harbors Luis Posada Carrilles in its very midst, the terrorist responsible for bringing down a Cuban airliner in 1976 and killing everyone on board, and for bombing Havana hotels in 1997.  So supporting terrorists is not a new policy for the U.S.

On the basis of his analysis, Larry predicts that “because of Iranian intransigence and U.S. obduracy—and, with regard to President Obama, a decided lack of political and moral courage—no meaningful success will be achieved” in the upcoming nuclear talks between the P5+1 and the Islamic Republic.  While it is not clear to us how—or why—the Islamic Republic would be less “intransigent” in defending its core nuclear rights, we agree with Larry that U.S. obduracy and President Obama’s “decided lack of political and moral courage” are likely to block “meaningful success” in the upcoming nuclear talks

If Dr. Zarif and his colleagues can drive home that Iran is serious about reaching an agreement grounded in international law as embodied in the NPT, then the next rounds of negotiations could well be a clarifying moment for everyone as to just who is obstructing diplomatic progressThis approach could also clarify, for Iranians and for other countries, Washington’s real intentions toward the Islamic Republic.  As Hillary pointed out on Russia Today, “the strategy here is to try to ease some of the pressure on other countries—on Germany, on England, on Russia, on China—to ease some of the pressure on some of these other countries in dealing with Iran.” 

For its part, the Obama administration is hoping to use the talks as they have used previous rounds of negotiations—as an occasion to reiterate offers that Iranians could not possibly accept, then cite their “intransigence” to urge the United Nations Security Council to impose more sanctions on the Islamic Republic.  We are skeptical that this established American approach will work this time around.        

–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett


336 Responses to “The Next Rounds of Nuclear Talks with Iran and Their Strategic Ramifications”

  1. James Canning says:

    I agree a deal between P5+1 is possible, and that as Zarif observes, it will take “political will” or courage on the part of Obama.

    I continue to think Iran will have to stop enriching to 20.

  2. Karl.. says:

    Talks with P5+1, useless.

    Nothing have changed Iran wont bow to demands from the P5+1, this will in turn be portrayed in west that Rohani wasnt “pragmatic” etc and west/Israel will use that to pressure Iran more.

  3. James Canning says:


    Iran simply must come to some partial deal with P5+1, even if most important aspects of the partial deal are not made public.

  4. kooshy says:

    New AP interview with Dr. Velayati (foreign policy adviser to SL), what he says is very much in line confirming this Levrett’s current GTT post.

    AP Interview: Top Iran adviser reaches out to West

    “Velayati did not rule out such direct talks, though he said it depends on U.S. behavior. “If the behavior of the United States is the same as it was before, I don’t think it would happen. They have to come down from their position. They still believe that they are a superpower,” he said.

    Velayati said Iran will not again suspend enrichment because Tehran had a bitter experience when it did so in 2003 as a confidence-building measure.

    “We stopped any kind of enrichment for two years. What was the result? Nothing. Every day they used to put an extra claim on their former claims. Why must we repeat this experience?”

    Velayati said sanctions can’t force Iran to back down, saying Iran has faced Western sanctions for three decades.

    “If you have a country, like Iran, with 15 neighbors, you can’t impose effective sanctions. We could find solutions to make these sanctions useless,” he said.

    Velayati also said Iran will continue to support Bashar Assad’s government in Syria, which is fighting rebels backed by Western and some Arab states.

    “We strongly believe that the government of Syria will remain in power,” he said. “The government of the Islamic Republic of Iran won’t hesitate to help the Syrian people and the Syrian government to defend their rights and their territory and their territorial integrity.”

    Basically he means if they still think they are exceptional they can forget it.

  5. ToivoS says:

    It will take political courage on the part of Obama to come to an agreement with the Iranians. He will have to accept the Iranians right to enrich U238 and likely demonstrate some effort to relax sanctions. If he were to do this it would produce a very strong political backlash in the US. Most Republicans, many Democrats, AIPAC, the neocons and their well funded think tanks and many of the more influential news outlets will raise a cry.

    In order for Obama to win that fight he will have to mobilize his base and appeal to the more rational elements inside the FP establishment. Unfortunately his political base is right now in the process of shrinking. The revelations that NSA is spying on every US citizen in violation of our constitution and Obama’s defense of those practices and aggressive pursuit Manning, Snowden and Greenwald is causing some real anger among many of the voters who supported Obama in the past. Even if those people desire peaceful resolution of the dispute with Iran, I find it hard to see many of them publicly manning the barricades now in support of any Obama initiative.

    I was optimistic a year ago that he would do the right thing once he was re-elected, but now he might be too weakened to do anything even if he wanted to.

  6. Bussed-in Basiji says:

    Great article.

    Now please tell your friend Dr. Marandi to send a copy of it to his friend Dr. Zarif.

    So let’s look beyond the upcoming negotiations, Dr. Zarif-jan azizam.

    Iran presents its completely reasonable and totally logically case, the US can’t even begin to consider it.

    No effin deal.

    What do you do now azizam?

    Just please, whatever you do, please don’t start begging the US negotiator to accept the deal like you did with El Baradei, OK azizam?

  7. BiBiJon says:

    kooshy says: “Basically he means if they still think they are exceptional they can forget it.”

    That, and this whole wishful business about the “moderate” this and “moderate” that.

    The Rouhani approach is going to be: “the thrust of Iranian diplomacy in the upcoming rounds of nuclear negotiations with the P5+1 will be to make it plain for all the world to see that Tehran is fully prepared to solve the nuclear issue on this [international law, NPT] basis, putting the onus on those unwilling to accept such a solution—the United States and its British and French hangers-on—why they won’t accept an approach grounded in reason and international legitimacy.”

    The intended target of “slogan-free” foreign policy, and ‘moderate’ rhetoric are not the US or the EU. The intended target is all other nations.

  8. kooshy says:

    ToivoS says:
    August 19, 2013 at 4:22 pm

    Basically you can’t accept that Obama is a puppet and he was stage presented as something and someone he never was or even not intellect enough to be. Well to me that’s a typical American thinking, even among the well informed so called progressives they still refuse to believe that the system is been hijacked some sixty years ago and no longer is possible to correct. Just think of it, as far as I remember every president of US in last 36 years has chronically lied to the public.

    Regan = Iran Contra
    Bush 1 = Read my lips
    Clinton = I didn’t get a BJ from that women
    Bush 2 = Iraq’s WMD are all over the planet
    Obama = I close this, I don’t do surveillance etc.

    This system is now only capable of producing someone else’s puppets to be voted in by a shrinking small majority that still believes in the system, this cannot last, an American spring is bound to happen .

  9. masoud says:

    In Al-Jazeera english, we find a guarded justification of Cairo massacre from Iran greenie, Hamid Dabashi:

    It had taught them how militant Islamists led by Ayatollah Khomeini had outmanoeuvred all the other factions, murderously suppressed them, distorted the revolutionary culture that had occasioned the revolution in the first place, and brutally imposed a militant lslamist rule over the democratic will of an entire nation. Based on that history, all Iranians understood what had to be done. It thus came as no surprise when the Egyptian army intervened, so that Egyptians wouldn’t suffer for the next thirty years what Iranians have endured over the last three decades.

  10. kooshy says:

    ToivoS says:
    August 19, 2013 at 4:22 pm


    The reason on Obama I say even if he wanted he lacks the intellect to be a good politician is because as a politician I haven’t yet seen he leaves a back door to walk out of numerous interior or exterior situations he puts himself and this country in.

    He basically lacks intellect to be leader of a powerful militaristically oriented rouge country. In lack of collective intelligence he is as dangerous as Dick Cheney was but the good thing is that he has less guts to be as dangerous, unlike Cheney and the spoiled kid, instead of wars this guy likes coups.

  11. James Canning says:


    You note a number of reasons that can and should be taken as indicating the US should not be in the lead in the effort to achieve an interim deal between P5+1 and Iran.

  12. Karl.. says:


    Thats disgusting, how can anyone justify massacres like that? The so called anti-zionist Dabashi’s article could have been produced by any radical in the israeli government.

  13. BiBiJon says:

    James Canning says:
    August 19, 2013 at 6:03 pm

    Quit trying to carve out a role for UK. Iran has as much use for UK as a guarantor/mediator as she does for an ashtray on a motorcycle.

  14. ToivoS says:

    Kooshy says “Basically you can’t accept that Obama is a puppet …”

    I know who Obama represents much more clearly than you do. Power in the US is exerted in multiple power centers. Obama became president because attracted financial backing from two important ones: the Israel lobby and Wall Street finance. They threw their support behind him because he had the political skills to win the primaries in 2008 with his ability to mobilize the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. This makes up a majority of the Party if you just count those who are willing to actively work in campaigns and donate money (small amounts per donor, to be sure, but the total number willing to fork over a few hundred dollars is high).

    Obama made private promises to the high rollers and lied to us in the grass roots. However, to this day there is no center to the power structure — it still contains numerous competing factions. Only foolish conspiracy nuts talk about some centralized power pulling the strings.

    There are many factions within the 1% that have no interest in making war on Iran. These include much of the oil industry, manufacturing (what is left of it), the computer industry for the most part and agriculture. Not everyone profits from war.

    Sorry to let you down, but the world is much more complicated than you think.

  15. kooshy says:

    ToivoS says:
    August 19, 2013 at 6:58 pm


    I didn’t try or even cared to change your mind or anyone else’s on how illegitimate the current American regime is, don’t get nervous here. I actually believe like the empire of the Brits letting this American rouge regime destroying itself is more beneficial to the real patriotic Americans and the world. As I see the ruling elite are working fast and hard to that end.

  16. fyi says:

    ToivoS says:
    August 19, 2013 at 6:58 pm

    Yes, I met some of those rank-and-file Americans who thought that “..he would take our country back..”

    I feel sorry for their dashed hopes.

  17. BiBiJon says:


    BBC is highlighting the excuses of coup planner. Any idea why BBC is doing that?

  18. ToivoS says:

    Kooshy you have no idea what my thinking is. I am quite aware that the US is in a downward trajectory. I supported Obama in 2008 and 2012 with full knowledge that he was playing us. But in 2008 I was reasonably sure that he would not attack Iran. The reason was quite simple — such a war would have been a disaster. If it had happened Iran would have suffered much more than the US. We have the power to kill 100s of thousands of Iranians. That is without doubt. And this is without nuclear weapons. Even then the US would not have won.

    If McCain had won in 2008 he had announced that we would go to war with Iran. Iran would have suffered much more than America. But in the end the US would have lost. That is what happened in Vietnam between 1964 and 1975. The Vietnamese lost over 2 million people killed. The US lost 50,000. But the bottom line was that Vietnam “won”. Kooshy if that is what you wish for Iran then so be it.

    My major political activity in the US is in the antiwar movement. Avoiding the next war is probably all we can hope to accomplish.

    I understand that Iran has its fanatics and they would be willing to sacrifice a few million Iranian lives to deliver a message to the US. I bet if that was put to vote of the Iranian people they would object. You should know that there are many in the US who are not interested in that outcome either. As it turns out, Obama is one of them even if he might be too incompetent to lead this country towards a peaceful end.

  19. Persian Gulf says:


    تا قبل از این انتخابات اخیر ولایتی رو آدم عاقل و کاردرستی میدونستم و احترام خاصی براش قایل بودم، ولی الان اسمش رو که میشنوم تصور یک آدم احمق و عوضی تو ذهنم میاد. اگه چنین آدمی مثلا میخواد مشاوره درست و حسابی بده که با کاری که تو 9 ماه اخیر کرد نشون داد گیجتر و نادرستر و غیر قابل اعتمادتراز اونی هست که بتونه چنین کاری بکنه (من جای رهبر بودم به چنین آدمی دیگه اعتماد نمی کردم حتی اگه رهبر به روحانی رای داده باشه). اگه هم داره در نقش یک دیپلمات اونجا عمل می کنه که بازم جاش اونجا نیست و مملکت به اندازه کافی آدم برای اینکار در حال حاضر داره. به نظر من ایشون بهتره تمام وقت به بیمارستانهای خصوصیشون برسه که اونجا موفق تر هم بوده، و بیشتر از این افاضات از جانب ملت ایران دیگه درنکنه. معلوم نیست دیگه چطور بایست یه عده برن گورشون رو گم کنند از دنیای سیاست ایران. بعد از 35 سال اومده کلا 2 میلیون رای آورده هنوز هم داره از جانب ملت ایران حرف میزنه.

  20. kooshy says:

    ToivoS says:
    August 19, 2013 at 10:35 pm


    My problem with Mr. Obama and in general the American regime is not on Iran, true that I mostly comment on the American policy on Iran, but that’s mostly to point on the hypocrisy of the American policy elites. For many years I have believed and remain to believe that America lacks the strategic capability (not military capability) to attack Iran even though like you say if it does she can inflict a lot of physical damage to Iran and the region, but like in SE Asia if she attacks Iran strategically speaking she will lose her entire western Asian assets and there goes her energy backed fiat currency and economy. Petrodollar is meaningless without Persian Gulf energy.

    Coming back to my criticism of American liberal intellectuals (who Leverrets call liberal imperialist) is precisely on their justified blind acceptance of the corporate installed regime’s attack on principals that they believe America should stand tall on and I mean every principal including due process, civil rights, human rights international law, etc.

    But at the end people like you say we were fooled, I voted for him because I thought he would do good, I have heard same line from my friends who voted for JWB twice and at the end they all say we made mistake, how many times this country and the world can afford to see American mistakes, wakeup America have a spring, awakening something for god’s sake.

  21. Bussed-in Basiji says:


    Like you, most people I know who respected Velayati before the elections, can’t stand to look at him after that performance in the debates and after breaking his promise to drop out in favor of Qalibaf or Haddad.

    After the debates and elections, Haddad is looking statesman-like and Velayati is looking like an a-hole.

    Finally everybody understands what we’ve been saying for 30 years: he’s Hashemi’s man dar-bast.

    I’m guessing SL keeps him close cause not doing so is more dangerous.

  22. Loftali says:

    Thank you for posting this. Interesting observations on Georg W! In addition to pressure from anti-Iran groups in the U.S. that will probably prevent a resolution, let’s not overlook power centers in Iran that benefit from the status quo and will exert their own pressure on leaders there. In arguing that the U.S. and the West can’t be trusted, they have plenty of historical evidence on their side.

  23. Jay says:

    Iran will enter any negotiations with eyes wide open.

    UK is an authoritarian sub-state. That it is an authoritatrian state is demonstrated by the latest letter of the Guardian editor:

    US views herself as an authoritarian super-state bent on conflict with its perceived adversaries. UK, France and Germany will follow the alpha state.

    As the Leverett’s point out, an effective strategy for Iran is to emphasize her transparency in nuclear policies in order to give her trading partners “space” to work within.

    Iran’s leadership is well aware of the futility of negotiating with the US and the irrelevance of negotiating with the subservient states of UK/France/Germany.

  24. Richard Steven Hack says:

    “because according to the fatwa [religious decree] issued by the Supreme Leader and based on the strategic needs of Iran, nuclear weapons have no place in our national security doctrine and are even detrimental to our national security…”

    Be nice if some of the clowns here would understand that..

  25. masoud says:

    Karl.. says:
    August 19, 2013 at 6:11 pm

    You said it. Benyamin Ben-Ilizer, former defense minister of Israel sounds exactly the same as Hamid Dabashi, and sundry other Iran greenies.

    Ben-Eliezer: Sisi is preventing Egypt from turning into Iran
    While the Labor MK said he does not know what the government is telling the US and Europe, he relayed a similar message to the Post.

    “[Deposed Egyptian Islamist president Mohamed] Morsi is trying to lead Egypt to be something similar to Iran,” Ben-Eliezer explained. “The [2011] revolution overturned a military dictatorship, but [Egypt’s army chief, Gen. Abdel Fattah] al-Sisi understands that Morsi wants an Islamic dictatorship – not Muslim, Islamic, which means they believe jihad [holy war] is permissible.”

    Ben-Eliezer said the Muslim Brotherhood wants to turn Egypt into an Islamic Republic like Iran with revolutionary guards that support violence and terror.

    According to Ben-Eliezer, Sisi learned that underground militias with weapons were being formed and realized he’s dealing with terrorist groups.

    Though he was not democratically elected, “Sisi wouldn’t have made this move if he didn’t have the backing of most, about 80 percent, of the Egyptian people,” the former defense minister added.


  26. James Canning says:

    R S Hack,

    Is anyone who posts on this site claiming Iran is building nukes?

  27. James Canning says:


    Rohani in fact is keenly aware of radical groups in the US that are trying to prevent any improvement in America’s relations with Iran.

  28. James Canning says:


    Of course the BBC is reporting on documents released due to Freedom of Information demaand in the US, regarding CIA backing of MI6 in overthrow of Mossadegh. Very important story.

  29. James Canning says:


    British diplomats are permitted to speak to their Iranian counterparts. US Congress tries to prevent any oral communication between American officials and Iranian officials. Virtually by definition, that communication must go through third parties.

    Perhaps you prefer Switzerland. Fine with me.

  30. nico says:

    About the Kennedy assasination and the consequences.

    How much is Obama free to act ?

  31. James Canning says:


    My own view is that the assassination of JFK owed a good deal to fears on the part of some fanatical anti-communists that he would pull US military advisers out of South Vietnam.

    And JFK opposed Israeli nukes.

  32. James Canning says:


    Fanatical, and very rich and powerful, anti-communists.

  33. nico says:

    James Canning says:
    August 20, 2013 at 2:51 pm
    “Nico,Fanatical, and very rich and powerful, anti-communists.”

    Like the 9/11 cover up, the Kennedy assasination could have had worked out only with the complicity (some would say with the active participation if not the global organization) of he country top political leaders in association with yop military and spy brass.

    Some isolated billionaire could not do that.
    But they could be of the party.

    The kennedy assasination as the 9/11 are deep state conspiracies of the highiest order.

    Clearly, Cheney, Wolfowitz or Rumy were among others part of the conspiracy. Like Blair.

  34. A-B says:

    Continuing with popular cultural references, as to Bob Dylan and Black Sabbath in the previous thread; in an infamous American novel that I prefer not to name, an American psycho chooses as his victim a five-year old boy who was accompanied by his mother at the zoo. The psycho discretely wounds the child fatally. The child collapses; the mother becomes hysterical; a crowd gathers. The psycho then comes to the rescue pretending to be a doctor. He calms down everyone and obstructs real help to arrive, just to have the satisfaction of watching the child die before his eyes while pretending to save his life.
    Hmm… Middle East ‘peace’ process, anyone? Old Israel-Palestinian flavor, or the new one fresh out of Syria? We’ll have a piquant Egyptian for you soon. Meanwhile, care for some ‘negotiation’ with P5+1? West can concoct you a 1000+1!

    But the American psycho has a fastidious British mother (cf. Hitchcock’s Psycho). According to the Brit, US’s ‘blunder’ was to use blunt (or honest) language such as “we’ll smoke’m out” or “crusade” when bringing misery to millions of innocent people, and after done deed they would again be blunt about it by saying “served them ‘”#&X@Ö! right”; unlike the ‘sophisticated’ Brits who ‘scientifically’ blame their genocide on their victims and pity them with a wry “Oh dear! We did [genocide] for their own good”. The Brits really thought that the Kenyans who didn’t want to be ruled by them were clinically insane.

    Further, the difference between the Anglo and the Americans may be their approach to make people accept freedom is bad for them; i.e. how to make a ‘khoda biyamorz’ out of Shah, Saddam, Mobarak, etc. by raining blood and frogs over people after the tyrants are ousted. But what they don’t want to accept is that people in MENACA are realizing that the unnatural thing in the ‘East’ is the Western presence, represented by ‘wounds’ & ’cancers’ like Israel and Saudi-Wahhabia. I don’t think ‘Wahhabism/Salafis/Takfiris’ and their association with the Saudis were meant to be commonly known; outside MENA, that is. Their savagery were supposed to just confirm the Western propaganda that “the vindictive sectarian Muslims are just killing each other, like they’ve always done” and if Shia’s are massacred, “it serves them ‘terrorists’ right, because they are violent Eye-rainians; not ever A-rabs like them!” Maybe the Brits think this Awakening is because Americans ‘blundered’. As usual, they would never accept that ‘Resterners’ might think for themselves.

    Now I’m sure some ‘progressive’ Brit (like this … Galloway character) will steal these words and make himself the champion of the ‘voiceless’ by boastfully bashing Americans, who, IMHO, at least sound more honest than Europeans when being self-critical.

  35. James Canning says:


    I don’t think you have a good understanding of wealth and power in Texas in 1963.

  36. ToivoS says:

    “I don’t think you have a good understanding of wealth and power in Texas in 1963”

    Of all of things one could say about his paranoid ravings, you say that!

  37. Rehmat says:

    I believe President, Hassan Rohani, is naive like the ex-president Morsi. Nothing is going to come out from these “nuclear talks”. The Washington and Tel Aviv’s problem with Tehran has nothing to do with Iran’s so-called “Islamic Bomb”. It’s Iran’s emerging power in the region which has posed a great threat to Israel as “regional bully”.

    Safi Rachlevsky in an article published in Israeli daily Ha’aretz (July 10, 2013) said: “Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s life mission – attacking Iran to save Israel has become impossible. It’s over“.

    “Above all, we must keep looking at Netanyahu, who says he divides his time 70 percent security, 20 percent economic and 10 percent political. The peace process isn’t mentioned. The entire objective of the so-called peace process is an attack,” wrote Rachlevsky.

  38. nico says:

    ToivoS says:
    August 20, 2013 at 7:09 pm
    “Of all of things one could say about his paranoid ravings, you say that!”

    Do you deny that the 9/11 and the Kennedy assasination were both subject to cover up story ?
    Do you deny that by way of consequence that the highiest echelon are involved in the crime directely or indirectly ?

  39. Jay says:

    Justin Raimondo’s writing about the latest episode of British thuggery also illustrates why a deal with the US and her “ally” UK is not wise, nor possible.

    “The land that gave us the Magna Carta and the English libertarian upsurge of the 17th and 18th centuries is now a parody of George Orwell’s dystopian vision of “Airstrip One,” where Big Brother looms behind every bush and the political class lords it over the ever-more-downtrodden proles.”

  40. fyi says:

    Rehmat says:

    August 20, 2013 at 8:58 pm

    The Iranians have down-graded the Nuclear Negogiations to routine activities to be handled by the Foreign Ministry; it is no longer of strategic importance to Iran.

  41. James Canning says:


    Assuming that there was indeed an effective programme of prevention of thorough investigation of JFK’s assassination, one cannot understand how this would be possible without understanding Texas in 1963.

    Nico needs to do a good bit of reading if he wants to gain even a superficial understanding.

  42. James Canning says:


    In the piece you linked, Lincoln Bloomfield should have mentioned that Syria offered peace to Israel for decades.

    ZERO need to overthrow Syrian gov’t, for Israel to achieve peace with Syria.

  43. nico says:

    James Canning says:
    August 21, 2013 at 1:06 pm
    “ToivoS,Assuming that there was indeed an effective programme of prevention of thorough investigation of JFK’s assassination, one cannot understand how this would be possible without understanding Texas in 1963.Nico needs to do a good bit of reading if he wants to gain even a superficial understanding.”

    Once the assasination occured the fbi, cia, military and government were involved in the investigation.
    Without complicity at the highiest level the case would have been solved.
    The best example is the obvious manipulation of the forensic investigation which was carried out in a military hospital in Maryland… Not Texas.

    Just like the factual manipulation and lies of the 9/11 commission.

    In both cases manipulation and lies have been demonstrated clearly.
    Time and again.

    What are your facts ?
    Where is your logic ?

  44. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    August 21, 2013 at 1:09 pm

    As you have implied, the United States and the European Union are too degenerated; you cannot work with them.

    In this type of situation, the only strategy is one of “Active Neutrality” – advancing your interests as opportunistacally as possible and avoiding any un-necessary entanglement.

    Let us watch while Saudi Arabia destroys what civic order was there among Arabs; it is bound to help the Iranians, their allies, and the Shia.

  45. James Canning says:

    Obama’s top general has written to Eliot Engel, stating the US will not intervene in Syrian civil war.

    Engel is New York Congressman, and Democrat, pushing for such intervention.

  46. James Canning says:


    I think Iran could communicate indirectly with the US via various competent European diplomats who would like to help bring about an improvement in America’s relations with Iran.

    This would be good for Iran, the US, and the Middle East.

  47. James Canning says:


    Iran also could communicate indirectly with the US, via various private individuals familiar with American officials etc.

    Israel lobby exerts itself to block all communications that would tend to improve or help improve America’s relations with Iran.

  48. James Canning says:


    I entirely agree the botched JFK autopsy in Maryland indicates a conspiracy existed, to suppress the truth about what happened in Dallas.

  49. James Canning says:


    Important aspects of what I understand about the events in Dallas, have come from private conversations with friends and friends of friends, who knew important facts bearing on the matter.

  50. James Canning says:

    Should we be thankful Obama has a top general who sees clearly the dangers that would arise if the US intervened militarily in Syia? I think so.

  51. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    August 21, 2013 at 2:33 pm

    It is a testament to the degeneration of US politics that a military man has to spell out why Peace is Cheap and War is Expensive.

    Generl Dempsey is a fluke; next time the Americans are not going to be so lucky.

    [Watch what just happened in Syira – a false flag attack killing hundreds of civilians by rebels and then, right on queue, US, EU, Arab League, Saudi Arabia asking for an investigation by UNSC.

    This is what Axis Powers are willing to do to wound Iran; nothing any longer matters.

    You cannot do business with them; this much is clear.]

  52. Jay says:

    “The land that gave us the Magna Carta and the English libertarian upsurge of the 17th and 18th centuries is now a parody of George Orwell’s dystopian vision of “Airstrip One,” where Big Brother looms behind every bush and the political class lords it over the ever-more-downtrodden proles.”

  53. Rehmat says:

    @James Canning

    Were you referring to Obama’s top general Gen. Martin Dempsey?

    If so, then he did warn US-Israel and NATO, saying “Syria is not Libya” in London last year. However, every time he goes to Israel, he licks Netanyahu’s boots and claims “all options are on the table”.

  54. kooshy says:

    fyi says:
    August 21, 2013 at 9:09 am

    “The Iranians have down-graded the Nuclear Negotiations to routine activities to be handled by the Foreign Ministry; it is no longer of strategic importance to Iran.”

    That is correct; since Iran is now an established nuclear capable country she no longer fears an attack on her nuclear facilities, that is as SL has said any type of attack on Iran will be retaliated in kind, therefore negotiations on nuclear rights no longer is a national security case, rather it now is a diplomatic case needing capable negotiators who have established guidelines (it seems their guide line is set to be strictly NPT)

    I think Iran will accept to halt 20% as long as it can economically be beneficial and it is easy to buy, but the negotiators are not allowed to give up any of their NPT treaty rights including their right to higher enrichment. This can’t and wouldn’t be changed under Khatami, Ahmadinejad, Rohani, Cyrus the great, Anoshirawan-e-Dadgar, etc.

  55. Richard Steven Hack says:

    James Canning: “Is anyone who posts on this site claiming Iran is building nukes?”

    We’ve got a whole slew of people claiming it should.

    Which you’d know if you could read.


  56. kooshy says:

    Gav James this one is a must read for you

    August 21, 2013
    Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on google More Sharing Services 0

    Miranda Rights

    “What Europe Could Learn From Latin America’s Independence”


    “With a few exceptions, most of Europe hasn’t had an independent foreign policy for the past 70 years, and the U.K. stands out as a prime example of this. I remember discussing British foreign policy with a U.K. Member of Parliament a few years ago, and he said to me, “Do you want to know what the Foreign Office is going to do? Just ask the (U.S.) State Department.

  57. Empty says:

    James Canning,

    RE: “Obama’s top general has written to Eliot Engel, stating the US will not intervene in Syrian civil war.”

    Like they have not been intervening to date? Like they have had no role in the massacres and crimes committed to date? Like they have not immorally and materially supported the terrorists to date? Is that what Obama’s top general means when he writes that they will not intervene in the future?

  58. Empty says:

    James Canning,

    RE: “I think Iran could communicate indirectly with the US via various competent European diplomats who would like to help bring about an improvement in America’s relations with Iran.”

    Could you explain exactly what benefit is there for Iran to try to improve its relations with a terrorist, criminal, immoral, degenerate, outlaw thug, bankrupt and corrupt state like the United States of America? Did you know one becomes as good as the company one keeps?

  59. Empty says:

    James Canning,

    Please see the most recent letter (in a series of letters) by Dr. Alireza Marandi to the United Nations’ head. If you want to advocate anything decent and moral, advocate the rule of law at the international level.

    21 Aug 2013
    United Nations Secretary General
    His Excellency Ban Ki-Moon


    Following my letters of 26 November 2012 and 26 January 2013, regarding the highly adverse effect of the comprehensive sanctions imposed by western countries on the health and welfare of the Iranian general population, I write again to underscore that these inhumane sanctions–along with new sanctions against those holding or transacting the Iranian national currency, soon to be implemented by the United States government–are definitely having a significant and negative impact on the health of the Iranian public including women, children, hospital patients, and anyone on medication.

    As an individual responsible for monitoring the health of my country’s people at a national level, I again warn you, as one who bears the responsibility of defending fundamental human rights, that the applied sanctions have caused and will continue to cause acute shortages of necessary food and medicine. The sanctions are also making these essential items increasingly more expensive. As a result, these indispensable supplies have become inaccessible to the most vulnerable of society including children, mothers, and the elderly, as well as disease-specific and cancer patients. This has literally stopped many patients from being able to prepare or collect essential medications required for their treatment; we are, therefore, witnessing more and more cases of the gradual malnutrition and death of children and of patients with specific diseases.

    For over three decades, Iran has implemented highly successful healthcare plans and programs, backed by the World Health Organization, which have significantly improved the overall health of the entire nation. These achievements are now seriously threatened by the escalation of barbaric sanctions in the past few weeks, particularly by the US government.

    Therefore, once again I draw your attention to this extremely vital point. The gross negligence of the United Nations and other international organizations towards this issue of great importance, besides being recorded on the pages of history, will further weaken these already diminished international bodies in defending the inalienable rights of innocent individuals and populations in the face of sadistic collective punishment.

    Yours sincerely,
    Seyed Alireza Marandi , M.D.

    Academy of Medical Sciences

  60. fyi says:

    Empty says:

    August 21, 2013 at 10:15 pm

    Dr. Marandi, like other Iranians, must learn to stop complaining and act like a man.

  61. kooshy says:

    Empty says:
    August 21, 2013 at 9:55 pm

    It very well could be, this very letter sent by Obama’s top general on August 19th to Jewish senator from NY Eliot Engle, (refusing to get US military engaged in yet another war on behalf of Israel) what has triggered today’s Chemical attack that has caused 1300 innocent Syrian life, after all it is a proven fact that the foreign takfiri terrorist in Syria are all paid and supported by US and her European/ Middle Eastern client states.

  62. Empty says:


    RE: Dr. Marandi, like other Iranians, must learn to stop complaining and act like a man.”

    It is about documenting and establishing clear and official evidence of illegal acts. It is about “nahy_e as monkar and Amr be Ma’roof”. It’s about raising consciousness at multiple levels and providing opportunities for people to wake up and do the right thing. As far as Iran itself is concerned, a lot is being done in domestic R&D, drug manufacturing, and prevention of cancers in the first place. Of these activities, you might be unaware or disinterested to know. One thing would be for certain, when facing the judgement day (in this world and the other world), they could not claim that they did not know. The evidence is clear.

  63. Empty says:


    I think your suggestion is very close to reality. I think “intervention” takes many shapes and from top to bottom of the US, Inc. differ only on the facade not in the substance of their thoughts and approaches.

  64. Rd. says:

    kooshy says:

    “what has triggered today’s Chemical attack that has caused 1300 innocent Syrian life,”

    One has to wonder if this is in effect the new ‘dual containment policy’. For both friends and foe. US is stuck in her own morass where even her own allies are off the leash. This keeps the SA busy spending, while their EU dogs keep barking, and it keep Russia in check for some negotiation some day down the road.. US needs to keep every one busy for the hope to get back on their feet. Note to RSH, There will not be any direct mil. Engagement, no fly zone, etc.. just keep fueling the fire. This is low cost for US whilst keeps every one else, including SA busy spending capital.

  65. James Canning says:


    I have stated time and time again that the sanctions against Iran are counter-productive.

  66. James Canning says:


    Do you think the US should have avoided communications with the Soviet Union, to avoid what you regard as moral pollution? This would have been great way to bring catastrophe to the entire planet.

  67. James Canning says:


    Does it occur to you your strongest instincts are to help the Israel lobby to block any improvement in America’s relations with Iran?

  68. James Canning says:


    Martin Dempsey obviously is well aware the US could destroy Syria’s air force etc etc etc etc. He wisely says doing so would be dangerous and unwise because it is not possible to know what would be the outcome in Syria.

  69. James Canning says:


    Did Iran help to bring the catastrophic civil war to Syria? Sadly, this seems to be the case.

  70. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    August 22, 2013 at 1:12 pm

    Yes, and the Jews brought the Shoah unto themselves because they refused to assimilate and clung to their ancient religion and customs.

    What rubbish!

  71. Karl.. says:

    Try changing “iranian” with “jewish” and note how ugly it sounds.

    Apparently racism against iranians is fully ok.

  72. Rehmat says:

    An anti-Muslim immigration conference conceived by Australia’s Israel-Firster prime minister Kevin Rudd, ended in Jakarta the other day without any concrete results.

    The conference was hosted by Indonesian president Gen. Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and attended by cabinet ministers and government officials from Australia, Afghanistan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, Papua New Guinea, Thailand and Pakistan. Tehran refused to attend the conference due to Kevin Rudd’s anti-Muslim and anti-Iran policies.

  73. James Canning says:


    You continue to argue that Saudi and Qatari support for insurgents in Syria has nothing to do with fears about possible war in the Gulf. I think you are simply quite wrong.

  74. James Canning says:


    Jews in Germany had assimilated to a considerable degree. In Austria too. Failure to assimilate had little or nothing to do with the castastrophe.

  75. James Canning says:


    Upper-class Jews in England prior to the First World War had it right: they were Englishmen or Englishwomen who happened to be Jewish by religion. And they were anti-Zionist to a very large degree.

  76. Kooshy says:

    James Canning says:
    August 22, 2013 at 2:41 pm

    “Upper-class Jews in England prior to the First World War had it right: they were Englishmen or Englishwomen who happened to be Jewish by religion. And they were anti-Zionist to a very large degree.”

    Good for them and good for you. If that’s correct than one can conclude the real Zionist were and are the English state men

  77. Karl.. says:


    So, Saudi and Qatar start a war against Syria to stop…. another war from starting? Is that really what you are saying?

  78. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    August 22, 2013 at 2:37 pm

    Mr. Danilon, Mrs. Clinton, Dr. Slaughter, and Dr. Dunn are accountable primarily for what what has transpired in Syria.

    The committed the enormous power of the United States to that enterprise in order to wound Iran.

    The Saudis and Qataris were pursuing separate agenda – one for the extension of Hanbali control of the Levant, the other – as a counter weight to Saudi power – the Muslim Brotherhood’s control of the Levant.

    Each played on the US desire for wounding Iran; positing the destruction of the Ba’ath state in Syria as the most effective way of wounding Iran; all the while taking Americans “for a ride” – as the idiom goes in the United States.

    That Iran could not be wounded in Syria in the event of the state destruction there was evident to most observers, except those populating the higher echelons of US Government.

    So, the cunning Arabs of Persian Gulf once again told the clueless Faranji what they wanted to hear and got them – and through them Turkey – to do what they wanted; extension of the power of Persian Gulf Arabs to the Levant.

    That Syria, Hezbollah, Iran, and Russia destroyed that project should not detract from the moral and crimimal responsibility of its instigators and enablers.

    The only silver lining in this has been the escalating damage of this to Axis Powers and their allies; chief among them that nowkar called Turkey.

  79. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    August 22, 2013 at 2:41 pm

    I suppose I have to go through the effort of educating you.

    So be it.

    The Book of Chronicles refers to the Great King, Cyrus, as the “Servant of God”, urged by God to rescue Jews.

    Yet, in the Judaic Tradition – Talmud, Zohar, Mishnah etc. – the question was never posed or discussed: “Was the Great King alone in his belief in God or did he belong to a Community of Believers?”

    The Jewish Tradition, perhaps to maintain the exclusivity of their claim on God, essentially denied – by willfully ignoring it – the existence of the Community of Believers in God in Ancient Iran – who were not Jews.

    When Christianity emerged, it knew of no other believers excepting Jews.

    That the Magi – the Iranian Believers – were present at Nativity was lost on them – just like the certain membership of the Great King to a Community of Believers (in One God) was lost on the Chroniclers.

    As a foreigner and an alien observer of the Western Civilization, it is clear to me that a Love-Hate relationship – or perhaps a form of Envy – has obtained between Christian Tradition and Jews and Judaism to this day.

    Therefore I do not think that cultural assimilation was sufficient in the 19-th and early 20-th centuries to save Jews; what was required was the utter abandonment of Israel in favor of Christ.

    When that did not happen for 2000 years, the post-Christian Europeans, no longer constrained by the Doctrines of the Christianity (excepting UK, Spain, and Denmark) went about the project of removing the undesirables (Jews) from Europe via an application of the “Scientific” Doctrines of Eugenics –based on the “Best Science of the Time”, to a living population which desired only to be left alone to live according to its ancient religion and customs.

    Quite frankly, this obsession of Christians with Jews is a mental disease, in my opinion.

    [There is a reason for why Iranian plateau has been the only place on Earth that has had persistent Jewish presence for over 2500 years.]

  80. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Special appearance…

    Footfalls echo in Syria’s rose-garden

    The pressure is on Syria again over chemical weapons, despite the utter ridiculousness of the notion that Syria would make a chemical attack the day the UN chemical weapons specialists land in country. See my comment to the Asia Times piece. I remain confident of a US/NATO air campaign against Syria by end of the year.

    Rd.: You’re wrong.

  81. James Canning says:


    I take it you do understand that upper-class Jews in England prior to the First World War saw their “Jewishness” as being a matter of religion.

    I think Jews put more effort into getting historical facts correct on this score, than do non-Jews.

  82. James Canning says:


    Do I understand you to say in effect that Saudi Arabia and Qatar were keen to injure Iran to some degree, and therefore backed the insurgency in Syria?

  83. James Canning says:


    The Saudis and Qataris do not want another war in the Gulf. My impression is that they did see it as to their advantage, prior to possible war in the Gulf, for Iran to be weakened somewhat by the overthrow of Assad gov’t in Syria. Other factors were in play also.

  84. James Canning says:

    R S Hack,

    Yes, a number of people who post on this site argue that Iran should build nukes. None argues that Iran is building them. Some say they hope Iran is trying to do it on the sly.

  85. James Canning says:


    Yes, there were a number of “Zionists” among Enlish statesmen.

    That said, Lord Balfour did not intend his letter to Lord Rothschild to be taken as a call for a state to be set up in Palestine, for Jews and run by Jews

  86. James Canning says:


    If you want to say the US is the senior partner, in the US/UK relationship, few would quibble.

    But William Hague is able to talk to Iranian officials. John Kerry cannot.

  87. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    August 22, 2013 at 5:55 pm

    I am saying that “Wounding Iran” was how they hid their own agenda to gullibale Euro-Americans such as yourself.

    For Saudis it was getting the Hanbali School (Wahabis) established in the Levant – for Qataris to get Ikhwan there to relieve Saudi pressure on Qatar.

    “Wounding Iran” was the button they chose to press on Euro-Americans with their dream-world construction of the Middle East.

    The cunning Arab took the Faranji for a ride; that is all.

  88. fyi says:

    Kooshy says:

    August 22, 2013 at 3:14 pm

    Yes, the upper-income Jews wished to be identified as Englishmen, or a Frenchmen, or Austrian, or German per the new European doctrines of what consitutes a nation.

    But, alas, that was not to be.

    On the Continent, they were forced back into Judaism by being rejected as authentic Europeans – in UK by Protestants who were to committed to the fantasies of Ancient Israel to accomodate these “modernizing” Jews as Englishmen.

    The historical record is quite clear – Christians murdering Jews every-few centuries in Europe.

    Let us see how long this latest episode of tolerance is going to last in Europe and in North America; not as long as Iran, of that I am sure.

  89. kooshy says:

    James Canning says:
    August 22, 2013 at 6:05 pm

    ‘Yes, there were a number of “Zionists” among Enlish statesmen.”

    Gav James

    I didn’t write “Enlish statesmen” or perhaps you meant “unleashed statesmen” if so that works, we have had plenty of them in the west

    But after all I originally wrote “English State Men” there was a reason I wrote it that way.

    One would think a noble and a jolly good subject of her majesty would pay more attention to written words.

  90. Empty says:

    James Canning,
    RE: “Does it occur to you your strongest instincts are to help the Israel lobby to block any improvement in America’s relations with Iran?”

    Does it occur to you that you are making a distinction without a difference between the Israel lobby and what you label as America? Was it the Israel lobby present during the massacre of native Americans, destruction of their properties, and theft of their territories? Was the Israel lobby present during the burning and destruction of hundreds of African villages and subsequent enslavement and shipment of thousands of human beings for planting rice and picking cottons in America? Was it present during the destruction of Viet Nam? Laos? Korea? Columbia? Nicaragua? Just to name a few? In chicken processing factories in which women have to process 90 pieces of chicken per minute without bathroom breaks and any pause, that is causing various injuries and illnesses, is it the Israel lobby present?

    Allow me to make it clear: Unless there is a fertile ground and suitable environment, weed will not grow in a land. Unless there is an environment conducive to the growth of pathogenic agents of cholera, tuberculosis, and plague, such pathogens do not get a chance and the opportunity to manifest and express themselves and spread. Does it ever occur to you why the Israel lobby, aka the pathogen, has found a perfect and suitable environment in the US? Can you conceive why anyone would reject an improved relation with the US under the current conditions and environment in the US?

    If a community is infected with plague, what does a healthy and sober mind suggest: free relations and access to the place or an order for a quarantine until the disease has been contained?

  91. Halgheh Landan says:

    The basic goal of president Rohani is to extract a concession from the United States to settle for a peaceful solution to Syria conflict similar to the solution in Iraq and to bring about a political structure friendly to Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, and neutral to Saudi monarchy and Turkey. Iran thinks that as long as an honest political structure functions in Syria similar to Iraq, it can gain and not loose. In fact, Iran can offer a strategic alliance with the United States in exchange for an American pledge to actively support a democratic structure for the entire region. That offer may seem extremely enticing to the Americans as an “Offer you can not afford to reject”. And it all comes back to the core issue of whether the Americans will walk the democracy talk or prefer the Saudi monarchy vision for the region. Unfortunately, Egypt points to the Saudi script for the region but we can always hope for democracy.

  92. Karl.. says:


    I take it that you are saying that Saudi, Qatar started a war to block another war. Could you give any link to this possible war that they are blocking by engaging in the war in Syria?

  93. Sineva says:

    James Canning says:
    August 22, 2013 at 1:12 pm
    Once again james tries to excuse the perpetrators for their crimes,how disgusting,its just like the criminal saying that the victim was “asking” for it

  94. Karl.. says:


    Not only that, he use the “Iran boogeyman” argument to justify Saudi, Qatar involvement in Syria.

  95. yemi says:

    @ Sineva says:
    August 23, 2013 at 12:41 am

    Yes, you are right!
    That is exactly what A-B pointed in his earlier post

    “A-B says:
    August 20, 2013 at 4:23 pm

    unlike the ‘sophisticated’ Brits who ‘scientifically’ blame their genocide on their victims and pity them with a wry “Oh dear! We did [genocide] for their own good””

  96. nico says:

    yemi says:
    August 23, 2013 at 2:05 am

    It seems the leveretts are erasing some too strong worded post to their liking.
    However, what is the most important.

    The real meaning of racist, supremacist and immoral words from Mr Canning embedded in sugar coated, sophistic and manipulative words.
    Antisemitic by the way.

    Or strong worded principled stance rooted in truth, facts and logic.

  97. nico says:

    Article from the New York Times, published in 1983.

    On The Dangers Of The NSA… From March 27, 1983


    “First, and most importantly, sophisticated spy technologies with little oversight will ALWAYS be abused. This is not just the case today, but it was the case in the 1950’s, 60’s and 70’s as well. As the article points out, “the N.S.A. between 1952 and 1974 developed files on approximately 75,000 Americans” and“the agency also developed files on civil-rights and antiwar activists, Congressmen and other citizens who lawfully questioned Government policies.”

    Second, no institution should ever be trusted to come clean on what they are up to. The N.S.A. has a long history of lying to everyone and anyone who questions it. It is only when leaks of their unconstitutional practices are made public that they cease any surreptitious activities (or at least pretend to).

    Third, the most dangerous thing we can allow is the union of “public” and “private” intelligence security functions. These inevitably merge into one giant totalitarian nightmare such as what we suffer from today.”

  98. nico says:

    Mr Canning,

    So much with your stance about the US not being in bed with KSA in Syria.

    Quoted from Le Figaro, second french leading News Paper.

    “According to information obtained by Le Figaro , the first trained in guerrilla warfare by the Americans in Jordan Syrian troops reportedly entered into action since mid-August in southern Syria, in the region of Deraa. A first group of 300 men, probably supported by Israeli and Jordanian commandos, as well as men of the CIA, had crossed the border on August 17.”

    You are truly clueless.

  99. BiBiJon says:


    Did you know….

    Dame Elizabeth Anne Lucy “Liz” Forgan, who is the current chair of the Scott Trust Limited, which owns the Guardian newspaper. Forgan “began her career in Tehran. In 1968-69 she was the arts correspondent on the Tehran Journal, having taken time off in Rome to look at the Sistine Chapel, that kind of thing. Her father worked for an oil company there.”

  100. BiBiJon says:

    Don’t miss Yeganeh Torbati and Jon Hemming’s piece

  101. Photi says:

    James Canning says:
    August 22, 2013 at 2:37 pm

    You continue to argue that Saudi and Qatari support for insurgents in Syria has nothing to do with fears about possible war in the Gulf. I think you are simply quite wrong.

    James, who in your opinion is most responsible for fears of war in the Persian Gulf?

    How many threats of war have we heard coming from Iran? How many threats of war have we heard coming from Israel? From the US? Supposedly as a sovereign state the US sets its own table with regards to Iran, and so far has refused to stop serving war, so who again is most responsible for fears of war in the Persian Gulf?

    You very subtly have been trying to blame Iran for instability in the region when clearly belligerent schemes of sabotage, propaganda and outright terrorism are being openly displayed by the US and its cohorts.

    Answer us this James, Al-Qaida’s financial, spiritual and intellectual support and guidance comes directly from the oil beneficiaries and religious leaders in Saudi Arabia. If one of the goals of the US in its War on Terror is to decimate the al-Qaida leadership, why does the US continue to be allied with Saudi Arabia ? A strong Saudi Arabia means a strong al-Qaida, an yet the US, UK, and Israel have made the Saudis our major alliance there, does this not seem counter-productive to you? What (or who) in your view is most responsible for this seemingly irrational state of affairs where the “good guys” are unashamedly helping the “bad guys” ??? Is it Iran’s fault, or maybe the Jewish lobby?

  102. Rehmat says:

    Michael Nazir Ali, former Bishop of Rochester, represented the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby (with Jewish family roots) at the inauguration ceremony of Bishop Azad Marshall as the new Archbishop of Iran, on August 5, 2013. In an Op-Ed at British Conservative weekly magazine The Spectator (July 27, 2013), Nazir Ali said that Iran’s “new president Hassan Rouhani could be our best hope for peace in the region”.

    “Rouhani is a protégé of the former president Muhammed Khatami, with whom I have had the chance to work. Khatami’s presidency failed because the West, especially the US, did not respond adequately to his overtures, but also because he ran into opposition from hard-liners. His failure showed where real power resided — with the ‘Ulama’, the legal authority made up of the Guardianship of the Revolution, and with the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei,” says Nazir Ali.

  103. A-B says:

    The West apparently has a red-line if Assad would use chemical weapons; but has the ‘peace-loving’, ‘neutral’ and ‘non-conspiratorial’ West declared its policy in case of the Takfiri ‘revolutionaries’ use of chemical weapons in Syria?

    So, I guess, if the generic Scandinavian inspector-for-all-weathers would find evidence that the Takfiris actually used chemical weapons, NATURALLY, this infers that chemical weapons were used but there is no conclusive evidence that Syrian ‘regime’ used them! Thus, would UN blame BOTH sides?! And since Russia and China would ‘definitely’ not vote for any UN-sanctioned intervention in Syria; would the US navy, now in place, shoot down a Syrian civilian airliner?!

    Needless to say that I am basing my assertions on the M/O of the Imperial ‘one trick pony’ applied previously to the Iran-Iraq war. At that time, when the West was faced with overwhelming evidence that Saddam had used chemical weapons against Iran, of course, UN blamed BOTH Iraq AND Iran; and the Iranian victims of Saddam’s savagery, even those sent to Europe for medical care, were dismissed as Iranian propaganda. I remember France saying they were injured due to “explosion in chemical factories in Iran”.

    It’s funny; in light of this West’s constant treacherous and inhuman behavior, it’s up to Iran to win the trust of and ‘build confidence’ with the West!!

  104. Photi says:

    A-B, the West’s problem with chemical weapons isn’t so much their use, rather the problem is in *who* uses them. Assad is not in the club anymore, but the “rebels” are, so only Assad is guilty. It is only hypocritical if you think about it too much.

    See, Israel gets away with its use of chemical weapons (but then again Israel is in the club):

    “In Gaza, the Israeli military didn’t just use white phosphorus in open areas as a screen for its troops,” said Fred Abrahams, senior emergencies researcher at Human Rights Watch and co-author of the report. “It fired white phosphorus repeatedly over densely populated areas, even when its troops weren’t in the area and safer smoke shells were available. As a result, civilians needlessly suffered and died.”


  105. BiBiJon says:

    Who needs stinking plausibility?

    Most are aware of the back and forth between Jim Lobe and Gareth Porter with the editors of ProPublica, over at lobelog regarding Sebastian Rotella’s ‘journalism’ about Iran and Latin America.

    One of those editors came up with a doozy, even for the rancidly racist Islamophobic crowd who call themselves journalists.

    Tom Detzel wept foul at Gareth Porter saying “you misrepresent the breadth of sourcing in Sebastian’s reporting on the Baku case. On point after point, you rely on nothing more than supposition and generalizations about what is ‘plausible’ or not.”

    Yes, ladies and gentlemen. Today’s norm for journalists covering Iran does not require the application of commonsense filter; plausible, menopausible; just take dictation from whatever unnamed source in Israeli intelligence services, spell check, and publish … as fact.

    One wonders if Bank Mellat could win a case at UK’s supreme court, then could Iran Khodro not win a law suit against ProPublica and its crusading editors?

  106. James Canning says:


    Yes, and quite sadly, Israel’s illegal use of white phosphorus is largely ignored by the US. Thanks of course to the Israel lobby.

  107. James Canning says:


    My opinion that I regard Israel as the country posing the greatest threat to peace in the Middle East is not something I tend to conceal.

    My opinion that the US in effect encourages Israel to threaten the peace of the Middle East is not something I tend to conceal.

    Do I assume, however, that Saudi Arabia and Qatar had reason to believe war might come to the Gulf? My understanding is that Iran’s announcement of intent to treble production of 20U prompted planning to overthrow gov’t of Syria, if opportunity presented itself.

  108. James Canning says:


    I assume you are well aware that al-Qaeda seeks the overthrow of the Saudi monarchy.

    Many people who pose on this site seek the overthrow of the Saudi monarchy.

    Is anyone who posts on this site sympathetic to al-Qaeda?

  109. James Canning says:


    I am well aware of activities along the lines of what you posted. Yes, some American support to insurgents operating in Syria. Some support.

  110. James Canning says:


    Please provide a single example of what you apparently see as a “racist” comment by me on this site.

  111. James Canning says:


    Please provide for me a comment I have made that in your view “justifies” Saudi and Qatari support for insurgency in Syria.

    If I say that the Soviet Union crushed the Hungarian gov’t in 1956 to prevent notions of independence spreading to Czechoslovakia, is this a “justification” of the Soviet Union’s actions? In your view.

  112. James Canning says:


    Make a clear statement, please. Do you regard Saudi and Qatari support for the insurgency in Syria as having nothing to do with fears in Qatar and Saudi Arabia that war may come to the Gulf?

  113. James Canning says:


    Do you think a US blockade of all Iranian oil exports by sea, would lead to war? Do you need to do research? Or do you think Iran would avoid attacking US ships etc?

  114. James Canning says:

    Halgheh Landan,

    Great post. I have argued a number of times the US should work with Iran in interests of stability in Syria and Afghanistan.

  115. A-B says:

    Photi says:
    August 24, 2013 at 9:42 am

    I happened to “think about” the issue of use of chemical weapons in Syria (and how it is exploited by the West to justify another military attack) since it is the ‘hottest’ topic of the day. And, IMHO, the Iran-Iraq war is a more apt analogy to West’s current posturing against Syria than the case of Israeli terrorism against defenseless Palestinians. I used it to expose the (habitual) behavior of the Western hypocrites; so what part in my statement is “hypocritical”?

  116. Karl.. says:


    Dont you know what you have said yourself now?

    Here is a quote by you:

    “You continue to argue that Saudi and Qatari support for insurgents in Syria has nothing to do with fears about possible war in the Gulf. I think you are simply quite wrong.”


    Here you justify gulf states war on syria due their “fears”. In fact you are using the rhetoric Cameron used when he went to the gulf selling arms, he pointed to the shia/Iran threat.
    Now James 1. Why do you support the gulf regimes in the war against Syria? 2. Do you support UK selling arms to these gulf dictators?

  117. James Canning says:


    I have made clear I see the insurgency in Syia, and the civil war, as a catastrophe that could have been prevented, and one I do not “support”.

    That Britain sells arms to Gulf countries has little to do with the civil war in Syria, at least directly. And I think Parliament is quite right not to approve Britain’s arming of the insurgents in Syria.

  118. James Canning says:


    To clarify: I think that fears on the part of the Saudis and Qataris that war could come to the Gulf are reasonable. This in no way suggests I support their effort to overthrow the gov’t of Syria.

  119. Karl.. says:

    James 3:36

    Yes? thats what I just said you give credit and justify saudi, qatar war on Syria due their “fear”.

    And again do you or do you not support when UK arm dictators like Saudiarabia, Qatar?

  120. fyi says:

    James Canning says:
    August 24, 2013 at 3:34 pm

    This catastrophe in Syria, as you put it, was a direct result of “Wound Iran” strategy of US, UK, France and others.

    If you desire peace, you fly to Tehran.

    That is one’s only alternative to more war and bloodshed.

    Now, Iranian papers are alluding to orders from Saudi Arabia to use poison gas on the Syrians living in the rebel-held territory of Damascus.

    Arabs gassing Arabs to wound Iran.

    And Axis Powers supporting that ruse to the hilt.

    There is saying in Persian: “The man who has sex with his own mother, what would he do unto others”?

    The tactical and strategic lesson are quite clear.

  121. fyi says:

    Karl.. says:
    August 24, 2013 at 3:43 pm

    UK has decided to follow US to the Gates of Hell; the US & UK leaders who fired the poison gas warheads into Damascus.

    If they admit the Truth, that means that they are reprising the same role that they paled during Iran-Iraq War – the previous installment of “Wound Iran at Any Cost” policy.

  122. fyi says:


    meant to say:

    “US & UK leaders know who fired the poison gas warheads into Damascus.”

  123. Photi says:

    A-B, apparently my sarcasm was lost on you. I was agreeing with you by citing another example of the West’s transparent-to-everyone hypocrisy when it comes to war crimes. If you are a friend of the West, war crimes are dismissed as either lapses in judgement or actions taken in harsh and desperate circumstances.

  124. James Canning says:


    David Cameron and William Hague made clear they would not have excused Israel’s rampage in Gaza in 2008-09 and Israel’s smashing of Lebanon in 2006.

  125. James Canning says:


    I think the military establsihments of the UK, France and the US continue to oppose military intervention in Syria.

  126. James Canning says:


    I would prefer that Britain sold Range Rovers etc to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf monarchies. Rather than arms.

    Would I advocate stopping UK weapons sales to the Gulf monarchies? No.

  127. James Canning says:


    I think one would have to be very optimistic indeed to think chances of war in the Gulf were minimal.

    Tell me why you seem to think the Saudis and Qataris are mistaken, in thinking war may come to the Gulf (arising from Iran’s nuclear programme).

  128. nahid says:

    The meeting with Putin and the recent Western media frenzy over chemical weapons used in the Ghouta are directly interconnected! We can confirm that Bandar Bin Sultan gave the order to use chemical weapons obtained from Turkey on Syrian civilians as part of a wide-ranging, last-ditch strategy to unseat the president of a member state of the U.N. Our sources are in Syria and have significant contacts with the Russian Foreign Ministry.

    When Bandar Bin Sultan asked to meet Vladimir Putin – as we said before – this was not going to be some ordinary stopover for tea and blintzes. That a president of a superpower would deign to meet with an ape like Bandar, who is nothing more than a cheap National Security Advisor for a pre-Bronze Age state like Saudi Arabia, is testament to the fact that Bandar was able to convince the Russian Ministry he had something very important to tell Mr. Putin. The Russians privately hoped that Bandar was coming to throw in the towel.

  129. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Special appearance…

    Getting closer…Meanwhile, the fantasy that Obama is “reluctant” continues to hold sway as more and more preparations are made to attack Syria backed by the UK and France.

    U.S. preps for possible cruise missile attack on Syrian gov’t forces

  130. Richard Steven Hack says:


    Syria options weighed as U.S. forces move closer

  131. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Looks like Jason Ditz is finally getting the message…

    Obama Maintains Pretense of Opposing Syria War as Military Readies Strikes
    Hagel Confirms Obama Requested Options for Attack

  132. Richard Steven Hack says:

    “Precedent”? More like “pretext”…

    Obama Aides See Kosovo as Precedent for Attacking Syria
    Disastrous Kosovo Bombing Campaign Also Ignored UN Opposition

  133. Richard Steven Hack says:

    How’s this for making you angry?

    Obama DOJ Asks Court to Grant Immunity to George W. Bush For Iraq War

  134. Richard Steven Hack says:

    The whole thing is a scam perpetrated by OBAMA! This has CIA written all over it.

    Materials implicating Syrian govt in chemical attack prepared before incident – Russia

  135. fyi says:

    James Canning says:
    August 24, 2013 at 6:59 pm

    So the military leaders know War is Expensive and Peace is Cheap.

    The late Adolf Hitler was also opposed by his general in numerous occasions; for the most part his assessments were correct and those of his generals wrong.

    Be as it may, US and EU stand exposed for being essentially complicit in a massacre in Syria by their allies.

  136. fyi says:

    nahid says:
    August 24, 2013 at 7:30 pm

    Axis Powers, Russia and China shredded CWBT during Iran-Iraq War.

    Axis Powers have shredded NPT in case of Iran as well.

    They ditched Democracy in Egypt – just like when they destroyed it in Iran and Chile and elsewhere.

    Now they are in process of presiding over the shredding of Geneva Conventions.

    I think we can certainly conclude that they do not give a rat’s ass for the lives of Arabs (Christian or Muslim), Iranians, Kurds, or anyone else outside of the American Block (Axis Powers, Israel, Australia, New Zealand, and the associated satrapies like Japan).

    It also is clear the depth to which they and their local allies are incapable of reconciling themselves to the new Shia-Irani power.

    They prefer Death – of largely Arabs – to strategic accommodation with Iran.

    As long as Arabs and Iranians are doing the dying, this will not change.

  137. Sineva says:

    James Canning says:
    August 24, 2013 at 12:51 pm
    James Canning says:
    August 24, 2013 at 7:03 pm
    A picture is worth a thousand words,or even 20% of them

  138. Sineva says:

    James Canning says:
    August 24, 2013 at 1:13 pm
    I think these regimes fear and paranoia over the arab spring,the declining influence of the west in the region and the growing shia/iranian power got the better of their limited common sense,they thought that they could use the opportunity of the arab spring to wound iran,they miscalculated badly,it wasnt the first time they`ve done this as we saw with their backing of saddam,and it probably wont be the last but I think ultimately they will regret what they are doing now as much as they regretted what they did then,personally I think the sooner these puppets are removed the better it will be for the people and the region as a whole

  139. A-B says:

    Photi says:
    August 24, 2013 at 6:29 pm

    touché :-)

  140. Karl.. says:


    Well I ask you, you are the one that not only justify Saudi, Qatar war on Syria, you support arming these rulers. Are you pro arming syrian rebels too perhaps?

  141. nico says:

    DUBAI (Reuters) – Iran on Sunday warned the United States against crossing the “red line” on Syria, saying it would have “severe consequences”, according to the Fars news agency.

    “America knows the limitation of the red line of the Syrian front and any crossing of Syria’s red line will have severe consequences for the White House,” said Massoud Jazayeri, deputy chief of staff of Iran’s armed forces, reacting to statements by Western officials regarding the possibility of military intervention in Syria, according to Fars.

  142. nico says:

    James Canning says:
    August 24, 2013 at 1:02 pm


    Please provide a single example of what you apparently see as a “racist” comment by me on this site.”

    Well your active support for might makes right and “The ends justifiy the means” mantra of yours.

    Absence of condemnation from you equals support.

    You could say that is “stupid” or “idiot”.
    That is not.
    Such policies are criminal and immoral.
    Those policies are rooted in the clash of civilization, colonialism, disrespect for the other.

    I am sorry.
    But whatever nice and sugar coated words of yours.
    As long as you do not condemn crimes as such and do not have CLEAR principled stance you are a RACIST.

  143. BiBiJon says:

    Toby Matthiesen’s The Gulf Counter-Revolutions

  144. Rehmat says:

    The HOAX of Zimbabwe selling uranium to Iran has resurfaced after the re-election of Ahmadinejad ally Mugabe.

  145. Karl.. says:

    The constant wars and the new threats against Syria show once again how important it is for middle east states, especially Iran, to have a powerful military and perhaps nuclear weapons.
    This is what everything is about, anyone belive US would threat Syria if Syria had a powerful military capabilities?

  146. Unknown Unknowns says:

    This post is for Empty, the Bussed-in Professor, Rehmat, etc., but it is especially for Photi and Lysander (especially the category on Creedal Beliefs; this is what we Shi’a believe…)


    The post begins:

    Well, it’s finally finished. A database of over 2,000 titles in various formats (mostly pdf, but also epub, mobi and MS Word), all within the framework of the sacred community of Emami (‘Twelver’) Shi’a Islam.

    First I gathered as many titles as I could (with the help of my friend Mr. Mohammad-Hossein Haqiqatkhah, who did a couple of big mass downloads for me and has been the technical inspiration and main mover for the project). Then I renamed them all, with author last names first. Then I classified them by subject, so that people can find what they are looking for according to the subject matter they are interested in. And lastly, I uploaded the whole database onto my skydrive, so that people can download at will.


    You will have to go to my Waliyic Islam blog for the link to the database as I do not know how to embed the link here at RFI/ GTT.

  147. kooshy says:

    Sorry if this is unrelated

    Here is the reason why David Miranda was held in London, looks like they have no clue as what he took and what information he has.

    “U.S. government having difficulty uncovering Edward Snowden’s digital trail: officials

    If Snowden could defeat the NSA’s own tripwires and internal burglar alarms, how many other employees could do the same?

    Government officials say leaker Edward Snowden deleted or bypassed electronic logs that would have showed what information he viewed or downloaded.”

    Read more:

  148. James Canning says:


    You do understand that Syria would not have been allowed to build nukes.

    Syrian gov’t’s problems arose from its failure to be more inclusive, in terms of offering adequate economic opportunities.

  149. James Canning says:


    Where do I say “might makes right”? I deplore the civil war in Syria. I opposed Western military intervention in Libya. And I opposed idiotic and illegal US invasion of Iraq.

    Was it “moral” for the Syrian regime to employ such brutal methods in its attempt to suppress the demonstrations? Prior to eruption of the insurgency?

    Where is the “racism” you claim you see in my comments? Do you mean it is “racist” to say Iran would not be allowed to build nukes, so building nukes simply is not an option?

  150. Karl.. says:


    Yes according to supremacist brits only UK could approve who could have nukes.

  151. James Canning says:


    What do you mean when you employ the word “justify”? I do not approve of the support for the insurgency in Syria, provided by the Saudis and Qataris, and others.

  152. James Canning says:


    You are too general in your assertions. For example, Qatar supports the Muslim Brotherhood. One might assume that Egypt’s suppression of the MB meets with little acclaim in Qatar.

    Al-Qaeda wants to overthrow the Saudi monarchy. So do you. Does this mean you support al-Qaeda’s effort to overthrow the Syrian gov’t? No.

  153. James Canning says:


    You are simply badly mistaken about 20U. Wildly mistaken, in fact. My understanding is that Iran’s announcement of intention to treble production of 20U led almost directly to strong Saudi and Qatari support for insurgency in Syria.

  154. Photi says:

    James Canning says:
    August 25, 2013 at 1:17 pm

    Al-Qaeda wants to overthrow the Saudi monarchy. So do you. Does this mean you support al-Qaeda’s effort to overthrow the Syrian gov’t? No.”<<<<<<

    James, there is plenty of evidence to demonstrate the Saudis are directly aiding the jihadis in Syria, many of whom are not even Syrian, and most of whom are ideologically aligned with al-Qaida. If al-Qaida wants to bring down the Saudi monarchy so bad, why are they directly being aided by the Saudi family? If al-Qaida was any serious threat to the Family, wouldn't the Family's actions in Syria be a serious case of cutting the nose to spite the face? I don't think al-Saud is that inexperienced. They are quite aware that America's on-going War on Terror, directed chiefly at al-Qaida and the ideological likes, would neuter any militant wahhabi efforts to bring down the Family. So its a win-win for the Saudis, use Syria as the lightning rod to gather all the jihadi leaders and militants who might someday pose a threat to the KSA. Brilliant. I think the Saudis are coming out on top of the "who's using who?" pile.

  155. Photi says:


    To what extent have the counter-revolutionary actions in the Persian Gulf, led by the Saudis, contributed to fears of war in the Gulf? To what extent have Netanyahu’s belligerent war cries over the last several years contributed to fears of war in the Gulf? To what extent has the Arab-spring inspired instability in Bahrain, Egypt, Yemen and elsewhere contributed to fears of war Gulf, not only in the Gulf, but in the region generally?

    When looking at all the variables that have added to the global fear of war in the Persian Gulf, that you have continually been peddling your 20% argument in favor over all the other variables responsible for the same fear is evidence to me that you, James, are trying to blame Iran for the war that may be coming. Do you really think 20% is a real argument in the face of America’s grand strategy of crushing Iranian power in pursuit of America’s own goal of hegemony in the region? You are arguing over salt, the wounds have been there for decades.

  156. Karl.. says:


    Yes you do because you really think gulf states needs to be concerned.

    Its like saying, “Israel need to annex Gaza, Westbank because they are concerned about their security”. Now do you believe that too perhaps?

  157. James Canning says:


    I think Israel needs to end the occupation of both the West Bank and the Golan Heights.

    Surely you are not arguing there is no chance of war in the Gulf. Or is that in fact your claim?

  158. James Canning says:


    The risk of war in the Gulf stems from the certainty there will be more sanctions if Iran does not reach at leat a partial agreement with P5+1, even if only tacitly.

    Do you think Iran will accept a blockade of Iranian oil exports? If it comes to that.

  159. James Canning says:


    Russia and China obviously do not want Iran “crushed”. But they do want a deal between Iran and the P5+1.

  160. Karl.. says:


    So you agree that gulf states alike israel needs to be concerned is that correct?

  161. James Canning says:


    I think the Saudis see the risks stemming from their support of al-Qaeda in Syria. How could they not see them?

    My understanding is that Saudi Arabia and Qatar both expected western military intervention in Syria.

    Would they have backed the insurgency if they knew this intervention might not be forthcoming?

  162. James Canning says:


    Charles Freeman was quoted recently as saying the Saudis are increasingly fed up with “Washington’s failure to restrain Israeli military adventures and the occupation of Palestinian territory”. Jim Lobe (at lobelog)

  163. Jay says:

    If Iranians needed any additional reasons for not trusting the West on any deal, they got some more:
    One day ago —
    No 10. Downing: “The fact that President Assad has failed to co-operate with the UN suggests that the regime has something to hide.”

    Today after Syria’s agreement —-
    US official: “Syria lets U.N. inspect gas attack site, Washington says too late”

    In other words, damned if you don’t and damned if you do!

    In fact, making a deal is interpreted as a sign of weakness!!

  164. nico says:

    James Canning says:
    August 25, 2013 at 1:09 pm

    “Where do I say “might makes right”? I deplore the civil war in Syria. I opposed Western military intervention in Libya. And I opposed idiotic and illegal US invasion of Iraq.”

    All your posts pespire with this very notion.
    Actually, the Iraq and Lybia interventions were illegal, legally speaking.
    But morally speaking they were not NOT idiotic. They were CRIMINAL and EVIL.

    The US and their western poodles are pursuing EVIL and CRIMINAL policies in the ME.
    That much is clear.

    By branding it IDIOTIC you exempt the US and co of their legal and moral duties.
    Actually the US and co do exactly know what they are doing.
    They perfectly know their own lies, propaganda, deeds and sins.

    Only idiots and racists could think that such acts are idiotic.

    “Was it “moral” for the Syrian regime to employ such brutal methods in its attempt to suppress the demonstrations? Prior to eruption of the insurgency?”

    This one is laughable.

    It has been PROVEN that the Syria unrest was preplanned by UK spymasters as provided in Mr DUMAS testimony. Even “prior to eruption” of the “demonstration.

    In Syria it has been proven like in Lybia that Isarel CIA, MI6, DGSE and others are in league with the Arabian Sheikdoms to stir up unrest, to provie weapons to the most backward fringe of rebels.

    Such EVIL and CRIMINAL behaviour are inscribed in a long pattern and the historical sequence of western colonialism.

    You are ready to brand the “Assad Regime”.
    The “Assad regime” is not carrying out sedition and war abroad.
    The “Assad regime” has much less prioners in jail compared to the US.

    The US and co hijacked the demonstration to destroy Syria, Syrian society and murder the Syrians.
    And they are much more to blame for that than the “Assad regime”.

    “Where is the “racism” you claim you see in my comments? Do you mean it is “racist” to say Iran would not be allowed to build nukes, so building nukes simply is not an option?”
    The issue is that you are either a sophist or an idiot.
    You smoke screen your position as you have no logic and use no facts.

    You are educated in history.
    But you KNOWINGLY put events out of historical sequences when it is in the interest of your orientalist views and you speak about morality.
    And when it is in the interest of your racist views you jump back to realpolitik.

    To sum it up. You are a nice flag bearer of orientalism and double standard.

    Is it psychiatric malfunction or racsism ? I do not know.
    But that looks, smells and tastes quite the same.

  165. Photi says:

    James, as you always say, it is the Israel lobby in Washington that prevents a deal between the P5+1 and Iran. If that is the case, shouldn’t the Israelis be blamed the failure of this deal? Iran is still acting with its rights as a signatory to the NPT, even with the 20%. Iran has already sent plenty of signals that it wlll accept a limit on its enrichment in exchange for something of comparable value, like removal of some of the sanctions. 20% enrichment can be blamed on the failure to reach an agreement. The ISraelis and their friends in the US should be blamed for that.

  166. Photi says:

    *something of comparable value will also have to include a recognition of Iran’s civil nuclear program. there is no way around that.

  167. James Canning says:


    I do think it is fair to say that the Israel lobby (and Israel, of course) have prevented a deal between P5+1 and Iran from being achieved.

    And one can blame the lobby and Israel if Iran is unable to make a deal, provided Iran tries to make a deal (even if only tacit).

    Maybe the most important question is how Iran goes about trying to make a partial deal, even if only a tacit understanding. At this time.

  168. James Canning says:


    Time and time again I urged the US and the UK to have better relations with Syria.

    And I oppose the insurgency, and support for that insurgency.

    You seem to think I regard the tragic civil war in Syria as a good thing. Wrong.

  169. James Canning says:


    Fact: Iran will not be allowed to build nukes. Is this a “racist” comment, in your view?

  170. James Canning says:


    Who is the foolish “US official” who claims it is “too late” for UN team to inspect the site?

    Did he mean the evidence is compromised?

  171. Karl.. says:

    August 25, 2013 at 3:19 pm

    It could be yes, if you go back and think about it, the reason why UK for example dont like iranians or arabs having nukes is because they are considered “irrational” and cant deal with these weapons, the fact that you ask such a question speak volumes…

  172. Photi says:


    Do you think Iran has an interest in not seeing the spread of nuclear weapons? Doesn’t part of the Imam’s fatwa prohibiting the possession (let alone use) of nuclear weapons include reasoning about the sheer destructive power of these weapons? Humanity has an interest in halting the spread of nuclear weapons, Iran, as signatory to the NPT has formally recognized this critical interest to all of humanity. If you are going to argue racism, you should focus on Iran’s civil program, because racism and cultural chauvinism is what prevents many in the West from seeing that Iran has any need for nuclear science beyond weaponry.

  173. Karl.. says:


    I break that question down in two.

    1. Yes there should be no nukes in this world, there should be no weapons at all. Thats an utopia.
    2. Are #1 premise possible? Will the today nuclear states abolish their nukes anytime soon? No.
    Having nukes does not necessary mean you are going to use them which people seems to forget, but what plays a part in having nukes is the deterrence.

  174. Photi says:


    so if Iran builds nukes in order to assure itself its own survival, and then proceeds to declare to all non-nuclear states they do not have the same right, doesn’t Iran then become guilty of the same hypocrisy you are accusing the West, Russia, and China of? your fixation on the weapon serves to re-affirm suspicions that give the Israeli/Zionist propaganda machine. Your right to do that of course, but Iran has already declared that nuclear weapons are more of a strategic liability than they are worth, and i agree.

    The availability of clean, limitless energy that nuclear science promises is a persuasive and noble enough goal to justify any nation’s lawful pursuit of such science. Furthermore, the deterrent argument seems outdated and untrue. Have nuclear weapons brought the US security and freedom from attack? Have they helped Israel? Iran has clearly rejected nuclear weapons, your chatter about Iran obtaining them is a distraction from that message. Or are you saying you do not believe Iran has rejected these weapons?

  175. Jay says:

    James, if you read the article you will see. Western capitals “demand access”, when access is granted, they say “too late”.

    Example of a parallel: Western capitals demand suspension of 20%, when Iran cedes, they say “too late”; now you have to suspend low enrichment!

    There is no point in negotiating with a reneger!

    From the Guardian: —–>

    The foreign secretary, William Hague, said it was “clear it was the Assad regime” that had carried out the attack, while a US official told reporters the move was “too late to be credible”.

  176. fyi says:


    Mr. Jeffery Feltman will be in Tehran tonight; let us see if that would accomplish anything beneficial for Syria.

  177. fyi says:

    Jay says:
    August 25, 2013 at 4:43 pm

    You are quite right; you cannot do business with the current crop of Axis Powers leaders.

    Mr. Assad le fils was trying hard to be friends to US; Americans wanted him gone (under both Mr. Bush and Mr. Obama).

    Even Israelis were interested in reaching peaceful accommodation with him; US leaders and planners did not care.

    The Iranians and their allies should have no expectation other than the current one; one is always reminded of the “Road not Taken” in 2007.

  178. Smith says:

    After Syria allows immediate access to UN chemical inspectors (all white/westerners) under military threat, England just officially announced that: “Evidence of chemical weapons use in Syria may have been degraded or tampered with”.

    In other words, England already knew that it was rebels. As previous UN monitor had announced few months back that rebels were using chemical weapons. In fact in all probability it is England that has armed rebels with chemical weapons as they had armed Saddam with chemical weapons which he used on Iranians and England at that time was blaming Iran for it.

    Nothing will come of UN investigation. It is being done by white people. Just like all IAEA inspectors are white. You will never see an Iranian inspector for instance inspecting the atomic facilities of Germany.

    That is why it is necessary to have nuclear tipped ICBM’s pointed at England. There is no UN. There is no international law. It is only might and raw power that matters. Iran should take notice. If Syria was nuclear armed just like North Korea, today it would not be in such a mess.

  179. James Canning says:


    I think Obama actually wanted better American relations with Syria. But he relied on bad advice from Dennis Ross and others.

    Britain wanted better relations with Syria.

  180. James Canning says:


    You make a valid point, that after Iran’s announcement of intent to treble 20U production, the reaction was so severe Iran offered to stop enriching to 20.
    Iran’s offer was, as you say, ignored. I thought that was a blunder.

  181. James Canning says:


    You have a strong tendency to ignore the fact China and Russia do not want Iran to build nukes. Their reasons are not “racist”.

  182. James Canning says:


    I tend to have little confidence in Jeffrey Feltman, and to see him as a stooge of the Israel lobby. Is this unfair?

    Feltman supported the Israeli rampage in Lebanon in 2006.

  183. fyi says:

    Smith says:
    August 25, 2013 at 6:02 pm

    Yes, during the 1991 war against Iraq, Mexican newspapers referred to it as the “War of Whites against the Browns”.

    But look at the bright side; an Axis Power war against Syria will get them bogged down in an unwinnable war for another decade.

    They will not be able to wage war against Iran at the same time.

    It will expedite also the dissolution of their power across the planet; they will be viewed as the “crazies” whose only policy response is war, and more war.

  184. James Canning says:


    Did “the whites” “win anything”, by overthrowing Gaddafi?

  185. fyi says:

    James Canning says:
    August 25, 2013 at 7:35 pm

    I am telling you how others view things.

    Axis Powers policies in the Middle East are heightening religious and racial animosities across the planet.

    No doubt.

    It is interesting that you pose the question of what “White” have won.

    I recall reading a US Naval Officer accompanying the late Admiral Perry to Japan observing that there was nothing that Japanese had which Americans did not have its equal or better in the United States.

    Thus I am lead to ask myself:

    “What was the total cost-benefit of the Japan policy of the United States from 1852 to the present?

    Did US, on balance, achieve a net gain?

    And if so, how much was it?”

    I suppose one can hire McKinsey & Company to perform such an assessment.

    I would not be surprised if the costs turned out to exceed the benefits.

    For UK, on the other hand, her imperialism made eminent sense; a poor country in the Northwest corner of Europe which began her ascent through Sir Francis Drake’s piracy and Elizabeth I endorsement of it.

  186. fyi says:

    James Canning says:
    August 25, 2013 at 6:17 pm

    And I want a flat belly and a red sports car.

    Not going to happen if I refuse to put any effort in reaching them.

  187. Rehmat says:

    @Unknown Unknowns

    I have simple answer to your posted link; There iS NO “sacred society” in Islam. In fact, in true Islamic teachings, only Allah and His Final Testament (Qur’an) is HOLY. All such TITLES are borrowed from Judeo-Christianity.

    A true Believer is neither Sunni or Shia. He/she is just a Muslim. The Sunni/Shia divide is political and has nothing to do with Islam, The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and the first four righteous Caliphs of Islam.

    There are 37 branches of Shia fiqah and 35 branches of Sunni fiqah. Shias make nearly 15% of world’s 1.8 billion Muslim community.

    In Allah’s view, no one is so-called “born Muslim”. One is Muslim only when he/she practice Islam in his/her adulthood. Find out more about being a Believer at the link below.

  188. Sineva says:

    James Canning says:
    August 25, 2013 at 1:25 pm
    It is enrichment that is and always has been the problem,the 20% is just a smokescreen and it has nothing to do with arab support for the terrorists in syria,if the west was so concerned about iran enriching to 20% then why did they not supply iran the fuel assemblies as had been done previously?,now part of this was because the west thought that iran could not produce those assembles itself,but the west knew iran could enrich to higher levels so why did they give iran the perfect excuse to do this?,thats the problem with your argument james,if the west was so concerned about iranian enrichment then the very last thing it would do was give iran the perfect excuse to enrich to higher levels,why would the west be so stupid as to give iran such a valuable bargaining chip?

  189. Empty says:


    RE: “And I want a flat belly and a red sports car. Not going to happen if I refuse to put any effort in reaching them.”

    Well, I don’t know about the red sports car but I could confidently say that you could achieve a flat belly by not putting any effort in eating. So, half of your statement could be disputed. Also, sometimes some situations could turn to our benefit by just not putting any efforts into them. The key is to gain wisdom in knowing exactly what the circumstances are.

  190. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Told you…No one believes me…

    Syria: air attacks loom as Britain and US pledge to use force within two weeks

  191. Empty says:

    James Canning,

    RE: Did “the whites” “win anything”, by overthrowing Gaddafi?

    Surely you’re not suggesting that Gaddafi was white? Preposterous.

  192. Empty says:

    James Canning,

    RE: “Feltman supported the Israeli rampage in Lebanon in 2006.”

    You’re not suggesting that Feltman is also a British agent, are you? Nonsense.

  193. Empty says:

    Richard Steven Hack,

    RE: Syria: air attacks loom as Britain and US pledge to use force within two weeks

    What have they been doing in the past two and a half years, used feather to tickle Syrians?

  194. Empty says:

    James Canning,

    RE: Britain wanted better relations with Syria.

    Are you suggesting that Britain has been helping to overthrow the government in Syria in order to have a better relations with her? Sort of like a shotgun wedding….I see.
    When is the baby due?

  195. Smith says:

    Sineva says:
    August 25, 2013 at 10:29 pm

    Under NPT, one can enrich to 99.99% if one wishes. All should either accept the law or just dispose it off. NPT is not a divine holy law. It is a man made law. The man made law has to be accepted by all parties for it to remain viable. One sided acceptance as Iran is doing, sticking to NPT while the white man does not accept it, only brings ruin. As can be clearly seen in the case of Iran.

    At any rate, I view NPT as another colonial BS infringement upon universal equality of human beings. NPT was drawn up with specific goals in mind. To concentrate global power among white man nations. For the white men to have the ultimate deterrence so he can go rape, torture, steal, kill and mutilate others on planet earth as he pleases.

    And the enrichment is not problem at all, let alone 20% or 2%. It is the sadistic nature of white man, trying to take over Iran, that is the problem. Problem is not the nature of the enrichment or the laws associated with it (laws that are made by the white man himself). It is the nature of the white man and his fear of any kind of deterrence against his sick urges for violence and blood. This will not stop. Until the white man is deterred.

  196. Smith says:

    fyi says:
    August 25, 2013 at 7:29 pm

    I had similar thoughts on those lines in 2003, with Iraq invasion that it would make Iran safer by buying time. While partly true, not much came of it. Now I realize the idea that while another black is being burnt to death does not buy time for the rest of blacks. Or for that matter browns.

    The core security paradigm of the white man and his source of power comes from stockpiles of nuclear weapons. They plundered Iraq, left it in ruins. In Syria they would probably never go in themselves. They will just use cannibal rebels by supplying them chemical warfare and maybe even use their air power to give close air support to their takfiri allies on the ground so that they can kill more. And the “rest of the world” is too scared to even talk let alone act. They are like the millions of blacks working the fields for the white man in 19th century. I do not think that they even have the courage to think that the white man is “crazy”. Slaves seldom think bad about their masters and the master’s dissolution of power.

    The white man has been in this game for the past 500 years. I do not think, that a few more years of cutting up Syrian bellies, chest and skull will make their blades any duller or rustier. Iran’s number will eventually come too. Let’s hope by that time, Iran has stockpiles of Salted Thermonuclear Weapons and ICMBs’. Because without these, no nation can defend its jaan/maal/namoos against the white man’s evil sadistic urges.

  197. Smith says:

    Rehmat says:
    August 25, 2013 at 9:39 pm

    I have much respect for you and your blog.


    Those are all meaningless semantics.

    Can any “Muslim” (Muslim as per your definition) nation send two aircraft carriers, three naval battle groups, half a million soldiers and spend economic equivalent of 5000 tonnes of gold to help Syria become a nation once again? [Yes, the same Syria that is burning because of onslaught of white man and his local mercenary cannibal slaves]. The answer is no.

    Can any “Muslim” (Muslim as per your definition) nation help another in a meaningful way? For example, does any Muslim nation have any intention to roll out a plan in this century, like the “European Recovery Program” for another “Muslim” (Muslim as per your definition) nation? Say for Afghanistan or Sudan or Chad or etc etc. These countries are the anus of the world having such distinctions as highest maternal mortality rate, highest child mortality rate, highest infant mortality rate etc etc. I do not think so.

    Or even better. Can any “Muslim” (Muslim as per your definition) in a meaningful way defend itself when attacked by the white man? I am not saying taking the fight to the cities of the aggressor. Just defend his naamoos. As it is now abundantly clear, NO and absolutely NO “Muslim” (Muslim as per your definition) exists today that can defend his naamoos, let alone his other interests.

    The rest is crap. Talk is cheap. And France manufactures more medical equipment, medicines, nuclear electricity, nuclear submarines, war ships, fighter jets, air craft carriers, bombs, etc etc than all “Muslims” (Both as per your definition and not) combined. I would say, you should write an article on your blog on why it is rather necessary for all those “1.8” billion “Muslims” collectively to at least try to match French in atleast one category in this century. And yes, they can use lots of divine help too. They would need that in abundance.

  198. Karl.. says:


    I havent talked about China, Russia, I talked about UK. Again that you dont recognize or admit that this is racism speak volumes.

  199. Karl.. says:


    Who said Iran would keep claiming to be against nuclear weapons if they one day got them? I have no idea if Iran have rejected them, maybe for now, maybe not. If Iran ever got attacked I am pretty sure they will start building them.

    You say deterrence seems “outdated”? Well why havent the nuclear powers abolished their nukes then if they are useless?

  200. Smith says:

    Karl.. says:
    August 26, 2013 at 2:39 am

    Iran is not against nuclear weapons. I can tell you that increasing number of Iranians are coming to believe that Iran needs to become a nuclear armed state. 15 years ago, the situation was different.

    Once the majority of Iranians demand for Iran to be nuclear armed, it will happen. Right now a religious interpretation is being used in support of NPT. This can change much like during the Tobacco protest. When this religious interpretation is revoked, even the marginal public opposition to nuclear weapons among Iranians will evaporate.

    If Iran is attacked in any form, IRI is going to lose face. Big time. They either will have to prove their worth and answer the attack in equal terms (for which they do not have the conventional capability) or they will have to test a nuclear device and announce Iran as a nuclear armed state. The third option would be for IRI to “resign”. The public is angry. After all the hardships, they want concrete result. Iran has no other option but to become a nuclear armed state.

    And, yes. Deterrence always works. It was mathematically proven by John von Neumann. Even Quran testifies to it.

  201. Empty says:

    Unknown Unknowns,

    Thank you for the link and your efforts in obtaining and classifying the sources. It will definitely come in handy. I usually refer to to original Arabic or Farsi sources but for referencing, this is definitely a good collection.

  202. Karl.. says:


    I fully agree with you. People often use the fatwa as a proof that Iran will never go nuclear that is certainly true aslong as the fatwa is recognized, but as you said that fatwa could be reversed if Iran for example find itself in a situation where they believe going nuclear or getting a nuclear deterrence will help them survive.

  203. Photi says:

    Smith, how many nuclear weapons will Iran need to provide a credible nuclear deterrent to the United States? The US has several thousand nuclear warheads along with the ability to detonate many of those warheads anywhere on the planet. How long will it take Iran to build up its arsenal and military infrastructure to provide the sort of deterrent to match the US? Will the US sit idly by and watch Iran build this capability? How will Iran pay for this grand nuclear arsenal? The arms race bankrupted the Soviets, you want that for Iran?

    Essentially you and Karl are arguing that “might makes right.” Okay then, if that is the case, isn’t the US justified in everything it does, right or wrong?

  204. Photi says:

    and now you (smith) and karl are arguing that tobacco is even remotely related to weapons of mass destruction.

    Karl seems like a sincere person, but Smith you are just another racist wanting to pollute the world with your wars and fascist ideologies.

  205. Neo says:


    Well said! (On both 5:06 & 5:10 a.m.)

  206. yemi says:

    Smith says:
    August 26, 2013 at 2:49 am

    Yes you are right.
    I believe with all the deterrence in place, the rejoice mode of
    RSH, JC, their murderous leaders and likes, to attack and kill Muslims
    all the time would be diminished.

  207. Smith says:

    Karl.. says:
    August 26, 2013 at 4:50 am

    It is only a matter of time. Before either Iran is raped or Iran becomes a nuclear armed state. There is no inbetween anymore. As fyi has said, the inbetween road died in 2007.

  208. Karl.. says:


    I havent implied “migh make right” I just stated the obvious that Iran and other regional states under threat, need greater deterrence and overall better military capabilities. Just look how west might go to war against Syria now, that would never have happend if Syria had great military deterrence. If Syria is attacked, Iran will be the next. There is a reason why Iran is so militarized.

    And with Tobacco Smith meant this:‎

  209. Smith says:

    Photi says:
    August 26, 2013 at 5:06 am

    “how many nuclear weapons will Iran need…?”

    The more the better. Theoretically you start with two. Detonate one to announce to the world your status and keep the other ready. You climb the ladder from there. Under wraps of secrecy.

    “The US has several thousand nuclear warheads…”

    This point is irrelevant. In a nuclear exchange with Iran (which US has officially not ruled out even on a non-nuclear Iran), US would not use more than a dozen nukes in “normal conditions” and not more a couple of hundreds if there was a two way exchange. Detonating thousands of nukes does not server any purpose as outlined:

    i) A non-nulcear Iran would be disabled and completely capitulates with the use of just one nuke eg. on Tehran. It does not matter whether the nuke is American, Pakistani, Indian, Israeli, Chinese, British, French, Russian or Korean.

    ii) A nuclear Iran would be destroyed completely with just a couple of hundred nukes in a mutual exchange.

    iii) All of vicinity of Iran will suffer huge losses in scenario (ii) including Russia. Such losses in conventional history have always caused for wars to spread. There is no reason to doubt that this principle will not work in non-conventional environment where losses are going to be even greater.

    iv) In scenario (ii), the aggressor on Iran will also get destroyed depending on the size of Iran’s stockpile.

    v) Detonation of a couple of hundred nuclear weapons will raise the background radiation globally contributing to numerous deaths around the world over the coming decades and possibly centuries.

    vi) Detonating thousands of nuclear weapons as you proposed, will result in nuclear winter and demise of almost all humanity (and millions of other species) including United States.

    vii) In such a war, the side that has a higher standard of living/more possession of material and wealth suffers larger losses. Since his demise will deprive him to enjoy his materials.

    viii) Since 1945, there has been a taboo on the use of nuclear weapons. This taboo was created at great cost both in wealth and blood. Once broken, the nuclear war will become the norm. Eventually humanity will come to end. Currently humanity is living on the survival of this taboo.

    “How long will it take Iran to build up its arsenal”

    This point is irrelevant too. All nations started by building nuke No.1 then they made No. 2 and then No. 3 and so on. Generally nations do not announce their nuclear status before atleast they have built No. 2.

    Iran needs to have a small deterrence to prevent a US attack on Iran. I would say even an arsenal of a dozen would do the job. Just a dozen salted nuclear weapons is the minimum that would give a stable deterrence. Iran can then work from there to increase the numbers or stay there. Half of them pointed at Arab oil producing areas of the Persian Gulf, and half pointed at England. US is not in the picture. It does not need to be. Iran’s game should be minimum credible deterrence with credible first strike policy. The threat of taking out quarter of oil off the world market plus Qatar LNG and England (very small island north of Europe) with highly radioactive salted weapons is a credible defense.

    “Will the US sit idly by and watch Iran build this capability?”

    Exactly. By the way, US is not almighty. It can not see everything. For the sake of argument has it seen what Iranians planes bring back from North Korea? I do not think Iranian planes have CCTV cameras reporting to US.

    “How will Iran pay for this grand nuclear arsenal?”

    Nuclear weapons are cheap. Developing the technology is expensive. Iran has already invested and developed the technology. Nukes themselves are dirt cheap compared to conventional weapons ounce for ounce of fire power. Their deterrence and the peace of mind they bring with themselves, though is invaluable.

    “The arms race bankrupted the Soviets, you want that for Iran?”

    You do not know what you are talking about. Read less western propaganda. Soviet Union collapsed due to inherent economic inefficiencies of communism. It had nothing to do with Soviet spending on defense. At any rate, US has always spent more than Soviets. By your reasoning, US must have collapsed a long time ago. And Iran technically speaking can not go bankrupt. Since it has almost no external loans. But sanctions on non-nuclear Iran are exacting a toll. And these sanctions will never be removed unless and until Iran becomes a nuclear armed state and assert its power globally. Personally, I think Iran should collect an oil security tax on Saudis/Qataris/Kuwaitis/Emaratis if sanctions are not lifted even after Iran going nuclear.

    “might makes right.”

    I did not say that. Iran is not invading US. Iran is not arming rebels with chemical weapons in Texas. Iran has to have the means to safeguard its jaan/maal/naamoos. This is not “might makes right.” This is gheirat.

    “tobacco is even remotely related to weapons of mass”

    Theologically yes. Politically yes. Economically yes. Read about that protest. It is related. Furthermore, Tobacco kills more people every year than all the people who have been yet killed by nuclear weapons. It is not a weapon of mass destruction. It is a weapon of mass murder.

    “you are just another racist wanting to pollute the world”

    The people do ad hominem because of they are short of arguments and logic and their upbringing makes them vent in such a way. If some one like Neo agrees with you, then you should know where you are standing. On very thin ice. The problem with people like is that you are the “house slaves”. You have absolutely no issue with the white man having all the nukes in the world. In fact if they start building tens of thousands more tomorrow, you will not even make a squeal. But if Iran is to make just half dozen for its own defense then you people are all up against Iran. Perfect house slaves as I said:

  210. Empty says:


    RE: “It is only a matter of time. Before either Iran is raped or Iran becomes a nuclear armed state. There is no inbetween anymore. As fyi has said, the inbetween road died in 2007.”

    I think you commit false dichotomy in your “either/or” scenario. You fail to consider a range of other possibilities.

    Is it possible to have nuclear weapons and lose a war? Yes, the US in Vietnam.

    Is it possible to have nuclear weapons and be raped? Yes, Pakistan by the US.

    Is it possible to have nuclear weapons and collapse as a political entity? Yes, the USSR.

    Is it possible to have nuclear weapons and lose a war? Yes, Israel (against Lebanon).

    Is it possible to have nuclear weapon and be subjugated in polices to another country? Yes, UK, France, and India.

    Is it possible to have nuclear weapon and not be able to conclude your wars to your satisfaction? Yes, the US in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Is it possible not to have a single nuclear weapon and remain independent? Yes, Iran for 34 years going 35 (God willing).

    Is it possible not to have a single nuclear weapon and win against a host of nuclear weapon states? Yes, Hezbollah (May God protect them).

    Is it possible not to have a single nuclear weapon and still be a “nokar” and “kolfat” to other countries? Yes, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and on and on….

    Is it possible to have nuclear weapon and still face security issues of great proportion? Yes, Israel, US, China, India, Pakistan, UK, and France.

    Well, I think there are so many examples……the point is made.

  211. Smith says:

    yemi says:
    August 26, 2013 at 5:22 am


  212. Empty says:


    RE: “In fact if they start building tens of thousands more tomorrow, you will not even make a squeal. But if Iran is to make just half dozen for its own defense then you people are all up against Iran. Perfect house slaves…” addressed to Photi

    It is possible to think that “white/west/US/Europe/slave masters” and the like are NOT good models to emulate. They are not the gold standard, you know. Just because they lie, cheat, commit crimes against humanity, lie through their teeth, build nuclear weapons and use them, that does not mean others should blindly follow. Do you see how one ends up internalizing racism and acquiring a slave mentality simply by considering what “the white men” do is what “should be” done? As if there were no other options available or worthy of consideration?

  213. Smith says:

    Empty says:
    August 26, 2013 at 6:34 am

    “Is it possible to have nuclear weapons and lose a war?”

    Yes, if you are fighting a proxy war against other nuclear armed states. Yes, if you are fighting an imperial war. No, if you are talking about deterrence for defense. I am not talking about an imperial war of aggression fought against proxy of two other nuclear armed states (china and Soviets). I am talking about minimum credible deterrence. These are two different things.

    “Is it possible to have nuclear weapons and be raped?”

    No. Unless you want to have sex yourself. Pakistan is having sex with US. Pakistan army is an ally of US. Has been and will be. Pakistan army receives highest military aid from US after Israel. The country literally runs on western charity. Pakistani nukes as per now, are only for deterrence against India. And it is working perfectly.

    “Is it possible to have nuclear weapons and collapse as a political entity?”

    Yes. Though irrelevant. Is it possible to have no nuclear weapon and collapse as political entity? Yes. Shah of Iran. “False dichotomy”? I do not know. But if you are implying that Shia religion is as weak as communism then that is your personal view. Many would not agree with you.

    “Is it possible to have nuclear weapons and lose a war?”

    See above response for imperial wars. The same goes for fascist wars.

    “Is it possible to have nuclear weapon and be subjugated in polices to another country? Yes, UK, France, and India.”

    Is it possible to have NO nuclear weapons and be subjugated in polices to another country? Yes, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Japan, Australia. The point is moot. Is it possible to have balls and a functioning phallus but no children? Yes. Of course it is possible. You have to put things in their proper place for it to happen.

    “Is it possible to have nuclear weapon and not be able to conclude your wars to your satisfaction?”

    Again see above for wars of aggression. But who says that the wars you mentioned did not end to their satisfaction. How do you know what their satisfaction was. Personally I think, this is exactly what they wanted. There are almost daily car bombs in Iraq. And Afghanistan today, is the largest producer of heroin, opium, cannabis (Iran is the largest consumer), has the highest infant mortality rate, has the lowest energy/electricity consumption percapita, and has the most corrupt government in the world as per western rankings. If you are an evil white man, would it not be what you wanted.

    “Is it possible not to have a single nuclear weapon and remain independent?”

    Is it possible to have nuclear weapons and remain independent? Yes. Will a non-nuclear nation under sanctions with a defense budget of 10 billion survive a NATO strike comprised of countries whose combined defense budget is two times Iran’s GDP? No. Will its independence survive? No. Will nuclear deterrence stop the rape? Yes.

    “Is it possible not to have a single nuclear weapon and win against a host of nuclear weapon states?”

    Yes. Mujahedin in Afghanistan. Taliban. It depends how low you want to go. Iran is a large country. I do not think Iranians would like to live like in South Lebanon with car bombs, suicide bombings, air strikes and such. The Iranians want to live a kind of life that is more in tune with having a nuclear deterrence.

    And so and so on.

    I think the point is made. Iranian air force top dog fighter jets are now 39 years old. It was made by US. Conventionally Iran does not stand a chance. This is not a war of swords. Iran needs a credible minimum deterrence.

  214. Smith says:

    Empty says:
    August 26, 2013 at 6:44 am

    I do not consider them model. But I have the courage to call what this is all about. There is white man on side. Others do not have that courage. There is no shame to have a deterrence against white nations. And there is no shame in saying that the white man has committed numerous genocides in the past 500 years and it is still ongoing. May you have the same courage too (Aamin).

  215. Photi says:

    Smith, you are a racist, go back and read your comments about the white man. stating an observable fact about you is not ad hominem. You are attributing characteristics of greed and warmongering to a (mythical) race of people when all people, regardless of race and religion, are subject to the same human temptations of greed, power, and the spoils of war . If you want to discuss warmongering cultures, then i think the debate could be advanced, as some nations are clearly more aggressive than others. But in context of your racist rantings towards the white man, you arguing against ignorance with ignorance. The white man is hardly alone in the history of Empires and the wars required to establish and build them.

  216. Photi says:

    Smith, the white man is not the only member of the nuclear club, so i dont know what that is about. And Iran hardly needs nuclear weapons to cause havoc in the sink also known as the Persian Gulf.

  217. Smith says:

    Photi says:
    August 26, 2013 at 7:36 am

    As I said. You are a house slave. You defend your master more than the master defends himself. Go read, the history of genocides. Iran used to be an empire. It never went genocidal. China was an empire, it never went genocidal. Only White man has been going genocidal in the past 500 years. After Syria, it is Iran’s number. But then you are a house slave. It is useless to argue with you:

  218. Photi says:

    Smith, i am a white man and find your language about the “white man” to be quite offensive. Germany has been genocidal, America has been genocidal, Iceland has not, Norway has not, Rwanda has, the history of indonesia has been quite repressive, cambodia, carnage all over the globe man, your are being selective in your reading of history. As a current example, how about the repression in egypt currently? The coup and subsequent “crackdown” on the Islamists there appears to have been mostly instigated by the Saudis, that is what happened in Bahrain also. the Saudis aren’t white, what gives?. If you blame everything on the white man and his whiteness, then you miss the injustice all of humanity is capable of, and you also then give ephemeral characteristics of a nation (eg, tendency to make war) genetic permanence in the form of skin color. That’s racism man and you need to be called out on it. Since day one you have been trying to control the discourse here, why should Iran listen to a racist such as yourself? Iran is the nation taking principled stands in the international community, and you want them to stop based on your own budding racist ideology?

  219. BiBiJon says:

    Photi says:
    August 26, 2013 at 8:05 am

    Smith is an hasbara operative.

    I cannot imagine anyone being a Muslim and be a racist bigot, advocate indiscriminate killing, and in one post he wanted to eradicate all biological life forms from UK soil.

  220. Smith says:

    Photi says:
    August 26, 2013 at 8:05 am

    Good for you. Then you are not a house slave. You are the master race who feels his “options” are threatened by Iran acquiring nukes for defense.

    Rowandan genocide was due to colonial policies of Belgium and was started by French killing the president of Rwanda.

    You do not know anything about Indonesia/Cambodia. Colonies of the whites once upon a time. Or even today.

    In Egypt the white are paying their house slaves to kill brownies. Islamist is a term invented by the white man. It is derogatory. Racist. Hateful. They were human beings. They were a democratically elected government. Saudis are another house slaves. They do not have the courage to move an inch without consent of their white masters. Know this well. The Egyptian coup started by approval of the whites.

    Do not talk about genetics with me. There are white people in Iran. There are white people in India. But they are not “white”. White here means a genre of European heritage whose sole preoccupation and goal in life is to subjugate other nations, torturing them, killing them and stealing from them.

    As you have now come out with your true self, hear this. People like us on the defensive can not be racist, no matter how loud you try to shout it. It is not Iran that has been going on creating genocide from Africa to America. As I have always said, only nuclear weapons provide the credible defense against your ideology of hate and murder. Your strong reaction against Iran having a minimum defense, shows that what your true designs are and what your true self is. You are are afraid that if Iran ever becomes capable of defending itself then you or your progeny will not be able to rape and kill Iranians. This is where your strong reaction to me is coming from. And funny is that, despite standing exposed here, you are calling me racist, but I wont call you that. You do not even know what racism means. How can a white know what racism is.

  221. Smith says:

    BiBiJon says:
    August 26, 2013 at 8:22 am

    Yeah, another ad hominem spewing paranoid. By the way, anyone who is of the view that Iran should not have nuclear weapons is a hasabara operative. Since he/she is saying the same thing as NutAndYahoo. It means you are one.

  222. Photi says:

    Karl, i am not arguing against Iran having an advanced military capable of defending its territory and interests. The Islamic Republic IS advancing its military, as any self-respecting nation should. The Islamic Republic’s defense doctrine is genuinely defensive in nature, a posture much cheaper than trying to project offensive military power around the globe. Iran can and is accomplishing all this without nuclear weapons. Iranians have the most important aspects, national cohesion and the will to defend to the last drop of blood.

  223. BiBiJon says:

    Chemical consistency

    It is uncanny how when it comes to chemical weapons, at the very center of things one finds the fear of ‘Iran winning.’


    In late 1987, the DIA analysts in Francona’s shop in Washington wrote a Top Secret Codeword report partially entitled “At The Gates of Basrah,” warning that the Iranian 1988 spring offensive was going to be bigger than all previous spring offensives, and this offensive stood a very good chance of breaking through the Iraqi lines and capturing Basrah. The report warned that if Basrah fell, the Iraqi military would collapse and Iran would win the war.

    President Reagan read the report and, according to Francona, wrote a note in the margin addressed to Secretary of Defense Frank C. Carlucci: “An Iranian victory is unacceptable.”

    End Quote from,2

    And why is Takfiris’ use of CW being blamed on the Syrian government?


    Indeed, it would be disastrous if President Bashar al-Assad’s regime were to emerge victorious after fully suppressing the rebellion and restoring its control over the entire country. Iranian money, weapons and operatives and Hezbollah troops have become key factors in the fighting, and Mr. Assad’s triumph would dramatically affirm the power and prestige of Shiite Iran and Hezbollah, its Lebanon-based proxy — posing a direct threat both to the Sunni Arab states and to Israel.

    End quote from

  224. BiBiJon says:

    Chemical consistency

    It is uncanny how when it comes to chemical weapons, at the very center of things one finds the fear of ‘Iran winning.’


    In late 1987, the DIA analysts in Francona’s shop in Washington wrote a Top Secret Codeword report partially entitled “At The Gates of Basrah,” warning that the Iranian 1988 spring offensive was going to be bigger than all previous spring offensives, and this offensive stood a very good chance of breaking through the Iraqi lines and capturing Basrah. The report warned that if Basrah fell, the Iraqi military would collapse and Iran would win the war.

    President Reagan read the report and, according to Francona, wrote a note in the margin addressed to Secretary of Defense Frank C. Carlucci: “An Iranian victory is unacceptable.”

    End Quote from www dot foreignpolicy dot com/articles/2013/08/25/secret_cia_files_prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran?page=0,2

    And why is Takfiris’ use of CW being blamed on the Syrian government?


    Indeed, it would be disastrous if President Bashar al-Assad’s regime were to emerge victorious after fully suppressing the rebellion and restoring its control over the entire country. Iranian money, weapons and operatives and Hezbollah troops have become key factors in the fighting, and Mr. Assad’s triumph would dramatically affirm the power and prestige of Shiite Iran and Hezbollah, its Lebanon-based proxy — posing a direct threat both to the Sunni Arab states and to Israel.

    End quote from

  225. Photi says:

    no Smith, you cannot just say ‘white here means such and such’ white means something specific, your own definitions be damned. You cannot reinvent language that way.

  226. Smith says:

    Photi says:
    August 26, 2013 at 8:49 am

    Neither can you define what others must do or not. Must have or not. Must think or not. Must live or not.

  227. Karl.. says:


    Typical warmongering nonsense by that author,

    “posing a direct threat both to the Sunni Arab states and to Israel.”

    According to these pro-israel authors Iran is as a threat for its mere being.

  228. Smith says:

    Photi says:
    August 26, 2013 at 8:42 am

    Conventionally Iran is still 50 years behind whites. If not more. Iran still is not capable of making jet engines of 1950s designs. So Iranian air force does not stand a chance. The same is with other fields. And even if Iran ever after spending hundreds of billions of dollars if not trillions and make a fine conventional force, it still is useless against a nuclear armed adversary. What is the guarantee that the white man does not make another Saddam and this time arms him with nuclear weapons instead of chemical weapons. The Iranian conventional force of the most sophisticated variety will not stand a chance against a single nuclear strike. What is the guarantee that if tomorrow a small protest gathers in Iran, the white man does not equip some “rebels” with two mini nukes and blame it on Iran, as it is doing in Syria only this time playing nuclear. The white man is capable of anything.

    The only defense against white man is nuclear deterrence. And it is rich of you advising Iranians to defend against your house slaves and your modern weaponry till the last drop of their blood and their children’s blood. Obviously here you mean the same way numerous tribes and nations that fought you till their last drop. They mostly with swords and you with tanks and gatling guns. That was really a touche by you. I did not expect that you will come out with this and literally spill the beans. The last drop of blood, right?

  229. Smith says:

    Photi says:
    August 26, 2013 at 8:42 am

    The last drop of blood. I told you, there is something genocidal brewing here.

  230. Empty says:


    As a Muslim, I consider being alert, capable, ready with all my/our might (intellectual and technological) and always advancing them a just and noble goal and in fact a responsibility for myself, my family and society, and my nation. As a Muslim, I also consider that a just, halal, and “paak” goal must be achieved through just, halal, and “paak” means within the framework and limitations set by Quran.

    If I or the “Alem”, pious, and learned person in my religion that I follow are mistaken in how to interpret Quran’s teaching and refrain from developing and using weapons of mass destruction in the goal of defending myself, my family, and my country, then God will hold me responsible for an unintentional misinterpretation.

    But if I ignore the teachings and use any means to achieve this noble goal, then I will be responsible for any crime that is committed as a result of a decision without moral scruples. I DO and WILL put up a fierce fight in any battle that is being waged against us and I fully believe that we will be victorious and those with absolutely no moral and just concerns about their methods will nuke themselves out of existence and join the dustbin of history, as the phrase goes.

  231. Empty says:


    As a Muslim, I consider being alert, capable, ready with all my/our might (intellectual and technological) and always advancing them a just and noble goal and in fact a responsibility for myself, my family and society, and my nation. As a Muslim, I also consider that a just, halal, and “paak” goal must be achieved through just, halal, and “paak” means within the framework and limitations set by Quran.

    If I or the “Alem”, pious, and learned person in my religion that I follow are mistaken in how to interpret Quran’s teaching and refrain from developing and using weapons of mass destruction in the course of defending myself, my family, and my country, then God will hold me responsible for an unintentional misinterpretation.

    But if I ignore the teaching and use any means to achieve this noble goal, then I will be responsible for any crime that is committed as a result of a decision to use methods without moral scruples. I DO and WILL put up a fierce fight in any battle that is being waged against us and I fully believe that we will be victorious and those with absolutely no moral and just concerns about their methods will nuke themselves out of existence and join the dustbin of history, as the phrase goes.

    Surely we could agree to disagree on this point.

  232. Photi says:

    smith, i have never tried to conceal my identity around here, so #fail on that one.

    my strong reaction to you stems from a number of assumptions that were made on this blog (directly by the Leveretts) and the commenting section, long before you started insulting all of us.

    The assumptions made were that war against Iran by the US, illegal though it would be, was credibly on the horizon. It was also assumed that hegemony in the Middle East is the goal of the United States, and that only a movement away from this goal of hegemony could a true peace be found between the US and Iran. That was sometime in the summer of 2011. It was understood by me (and i believe others) that the war would be started by the Israelis and their agents in America doctoring the evidence in the nuclear file (and other hoaxes like the plot in washington to kill the saudi ambassador )to goad the US into this war.

    Most of us around here thought and probably still think the war is highly likely. One of the strategies to try to prevent this war has been to combat all the zionist propaganda that is hyping Iran into a threat that it isn’t. The zionist and neoconservative argument says something along the lines of “of course Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon, why wouldn’t they? Don’t you see how threatening we are (America &Co)?”

    So the neo-Con argument is that of course Iran is pursuing a bomb, and they are not going to stop and so therefore America needs to effect regime change there, which of course has been the goal all along, the crushing of the Iranian government.

    The goal then by those of us around here who do not want to see this war has been to confront the lies that the neo-cons are spreading. Iran has been clear it does not want the nuclear weapons, the fatwa is serious business, Iran’s military posture is a genuine posture of defense. Nuclear weapons do not fit.

    But then along comes Smith, screaming at the top of his lungs, iran needs nukes, iran needs nuclear tipped ICBM aimed at europe and beyond and yadda yadda yadda all the rudeness and bullshit you have been spreading.

    how are we not to think you are a neo-con operative? your language and racism will directly aid in scuttling a deal between the P5+ 1 and Iran. If not enough people are convinced Iran’s program is peaceful, no agreement will be made and the situation will escalate from there.

    That you so perfectly reflect the hyped up fears of Israeli and American politicians raises quite a few red flags, given that you are not an Iranian official and it does not appear you live in Iran (though i could be wrong). Why would you want to help scuttle a deal that may very well prevent a major war?

  233. nahid says:

    Mr. Smith
    I agree with you, Iran must progress in every field of science, economy and military and offence is best defense , Iran should have all options. But the timing must be right. Iran is reaching to that time, hopefully.

  234. Photi says:

    smith to accuse me of genocide is preposterous and demonstrates your lack of seriousness. you will say whatever you think you need to say to support your argument. I reject your lies.

  235. Smith says:

    Empty says:
    August 26, 2013 at 9:26 am

    You are right. This one will take some time to play out. Let’s hope and pray for the best.

  236. BiBiJon says:

    Turn their tricks against them

    Thank you Photi, and Empty for using Smith’s attacks on all things decent to show what the opposite sounds like.

  237. Smith says:

    Photi says:
    August 26, 2013 at 9:27 am

    Useless argument. Weakness and the preaching of weakness does not bring security. Obviously your stated aim here is “peace”, whatever that is. If it fails, you and your cousins are the not the ones that are doing the dying. You are just going to watch some brownies getting killed on your TV. For Iranians though the matter is security. It is not peace.

    Libya was not a threat. Iraq was not a threat. Even Afghanistan was not a threat. Syria is not a threat. Your theory is wrong. And you know it. White man does not need to be threatened in order to rape. He rapes for the fun of it. He is sick. He has been for the past 500 years. The thing that stops him is not weakness and advertisement for weakness. It is strength and credible nuclear defense. Just look what is happening in Syria. Does the white man give a hoot? No. He is enjoying himself. Now, imagine if Syria hand half dozen nukes pointed at England. Do you honestly believe Syria would be bleeding today? Think as a human being and not as a white and answer me.

  238. Smith says:

    Photi says:
    August 26, 2013 at 9:40 am

    I did not accuse you of genocide. I accused you of vouching for it. Of course you are white. But just for one minute on the clock forget that you are white and think you are a brownie Syrian. Simulate it in your brain, if you are capable of it. Go back in time. Would it not be prudent for Syria to have half a dozen nukes pointed at England?

  239. Smith says:

    nahid says:
    August 26, 2013 at 9:39 am

    Yes, madam. That is the only way for Iran now. There is no one that will come to aid and help Iran. And if we go by fyi’s time table, then the time is very near. And hopefully Iran will deliver.

  240. nahid says:

    According to the insurgency supporting Syrian Observatory 136 people have been killed two days ago by some unknown substance released during ongoing fights by unknown perpetrators in some villages east of Damascus. in Egypt over 1200 got killed (field Negros)no lament when house Negro kills it is justified .

  241. fyi says:

    Smith says:
    August 26, 2013 at 1:30 am

    No, no, no.

    They did not plunder Iraq; rather completed the process of its ruination that had started in 1980.

    But there was much gain in it for Iranians and the Shia.

    The war in Syria is the Axis Powers’ way of trying to recover from one strategic disaster – which is leading them into another one.

    It is a funny thing; Axis Powers, in effect, pushing for Hanbali school in the Levant,

  242. Rehmat says:

    Two ‘Friends of Israel’ visit Tehran

    On Sunday, the Sultan of Oman, Qaboos bin Said al-Said, became the first head of an Arab state to meet Iran’s new president Hassan Rouhani in Tehran. Jeffrey Feltman, the political chief of the United Nations, also arrived in Tehran on Monday, to have talks with Iran’s new foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif.

  243. fyi says:

    Smith says:
    August 26, 2013 at 1:56 am

    France, in fact, is the target of Iranians’ aspirations – in many walks of life; including even Mr. Khamenei.

    Since very many Iranians have set their sight very high, even if they fall short of that goal, they would be in a comfortable place.

    As for other Iranians who think there is a margin in setting their goal to 7-th century – like all these other Muslims – one could only hope that they would someday wake-up from their Dream World.

    Incidentally, Iranians are doing reasonably well in helping Afghanistan and – with their gas pipelines – Syria and Iraq.

    They have demonstrated a positive vision of development and are acting upon it – in Central Asia as well.

    They would have been more effective had Axis Powers not been waging this economic war against them; they and their neighbours – no doubt.

  244. fyi says:

    Rehmat says:
    August 26, 2013 at 10:58 am

    Americans have been successful in ruining any possibility of strategic understanding between Iran and Russia and India.

    The interesting thing is that they achieved this largely through what, in US, is called “Smoke-and-Mirrors”

    [In Persian it is called “…the green garden gate…”.]

    That is, very modest concessions to Russia and India for the ruination of their strategic relationship with Iran.

    Americans are also performing the same Smoke-and-Mirrors game with their so-called “Shale Oil Revolution” to destroy Iran’s oil exports.

    I suspect that by now the Russians – due to the War for Syria – have been awakened to the price they have paid and the resulting emasculation of their posture on Syria.

    Likewise, I expect by 2014, for the oil markets to reveal that there is not much oil that could replace Iran’s.

    But the damage is done and Americans have gained what they needed; turning 2013 into the critical year for them to achieve their aims in wounding Iran.

    I note here that the Indian and Russian leaders still expect to be able to recover their positions in Iran on the cheap.

    I think that is not feasible; from 2010 until the present Iranians were forced into relying on their own resources; status quo ante with these powers is not possible any longer either.

  245. fyi says:

    nahid says:
    August 26, 2013 at 9:39 am

    The critical factor for “Iran progressing in any field” is an independent evaluation of the Western Civilization; the dominant civilization on this planet.

    A pre-requisite of such an evaluation is serious study of the Legacy of Rome, Christianity, and Anthropology of Northern Europe.

    This is lacking; e.g. you might have read Mr. Bussed-in-Basiji’s response to my eminently sensible proposition to translate the works of Cardinal Von Balthasar into Persian in order to facilitate original Iranian scholarship of one main aspect of the Western Civilization.

    In China, in Korea, in Japan, and in India such scholarship does not exist; that is why even Japan, the most successful modernizing polity in history, cannot keep up with Western Civilization.

    Mere copying of technologies dating back to 1950s – however necessary in the current junction – is not sufficient.

  246. James Canning says:

    “Mr. Kerry has wooed the Arab states to recommit to a 2002 Arab League peace initiative put forward by Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah. . . ”
    – – Jay Solomon, writing in the Wall Street Journal Aug. 24-25.

    In fact, the 2002 Saudi peace plan has been on the table since 2002. Israel has failed to respond to that generous offer.

  247. James Canning says:


    The Americans have “emasculated” Russia’s positioin on Syria?

    Russia wants a peace conference, with no preconditions, and with Iran participating.

    You argued there was no need for such a conference.

  248. James Canning says:


    You have difficulty grasping a simple fact: Syria would not have been allowed to build nukes. Not an option that Bashar al-Assad failed to pursue.

  249. James Canning says:


    I too thought Edward Littwak’s opinion piece in NYT offered very poor advice to Obama.

    Luttwak wants endless civil war in Syria.

  250. James Canning says:

    Photi & BibiJon,

    An assumption that Smith is a propagandist for neocon warmongers is sound.

  251. James Canning says:


    Where do you get the notion I would “rejoice” at an attack on Iran? Or on Syria? Rubbish. I encourage you to provide a single comment by me to support your preposterous contention.

  252. James Canning says:


    You claim it is “racist” for the UK to insist Iran not build nukes, but that it is not “racist” for China to insist Iran not build nukes. Your “logic”?

  253. James Canning says:


    Possibly, you are trying to argue Iran faces no opposition from China or Russia, should Iran try to build nukes. Correct?

  254. James Canning says:


    Please clarify your comment about Jeffrey Feltman. I think he was wrong to approve of Israel’s 2006 smashing of Lebanon. Your view?

  255. James Canning says:


    The new coalition government in Britain wanted to improve relations with Iran, Syria, Hezbollah.

    Iran helped to block this effort, by announcing intent to treble 20U production.

  256. James Canning says:

    R S Hack,

    I have never doubted the danger of some US (or UK) “response” to an incident where chemical weapons appear to have been used by Syrian gov’t.

  257. James Canning says:


    I have argued many times it was idiotic for the US to block Iran’s application to buy replacement nuclear fuel for the Tehran reactor. That this in effect forced Iran to enrich to 20.

    Calling it “idiotic” in fact is being kind to American decision-makers.

  258. Karl.. says:


    “I have never doubted the danger of some US (or UK) “response” to an incident where chemical weapons appear to have been used by Syrian gov’t.”

    Apparently you dont, since you like cameron have “no doubt” the gov. did it.

  259. Karl.. says:


    Again I havent even mentioned Russia or China I spoke of west and again denying racism like you do is reprehensible.

  260. fyi says:

    James Canning says:
    August 26, 2013 at 1:13 pm

    The 2002 Arab Peace Plan was part of the tactical propaganda in preparation of the war on Iraq.

    [This was not even a Peace Plan; it was a vision; and neither PA nor Egypt participated – the late Arafat and Mr. Mubarak, I imagine, knew what it was all about.]

    Likewise, Mr. Kerry’s restart of the Peace Negotiations between Israel and PA must be understood as another tactical propaganda move in US Plans for war in Syria; Saudis supplying the seeds of a cause belli.

    Russian cannot do a damn thing in Syria any longer without accepting more costs; that is, without paying the diplomatic prices of being an active and overboard supporter of Syrian Government.

    They are loath to do that.

    Furthermore, Russia has zero leverage with Iran; Mr. Lavrov can speak as much as he likes of Geneva II – it will not happen. Iranian leaders have determined that there is no benefit in it for Syria or for Iran and that war to the end is the only strategic choice.

    Do not forget that US and France attacked Syria in 1983 – it made no strategic difference then and it won’t make any now either.

    Not when one’s physical existence is at stake.

    US succeeded in severing the only functioning state in Western Asia from strategic cooperation with India, EU, and Russia; hoping that ensuing isolation to cause her to surrender.

    When that did not happen, it meant the painstaking efforts of US diplomats and officials over many years had resulted in strategic failure for US.

    Let us see how the rest of this is going to play out.

    It is interesting that in US and UK, were there is across-the-board popular opposition to war in Syria, their governments are going about preparing for exactly such a war.

  261. James Canning says:


    Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia was completely sincere in pushing the 2002 peace plan, as a realistic way to end the Israel/Palestine problem

    2002 Saudi peace plan WAS NOT part of scheme to set up the illegal and idiotic invasion of Iraq in 2003. Abdullah had serious reservations about that invasion.

    All Arab countries backed the 2002 Saudi peace plan, and still do.

  262. James Canning says:


    You are badly informed if you think William Hague and David Cameron did not come into office with a programme of seeking better UK relations with Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas. BADLY informed. Full stop.

  263. James Canning says:


    Of course YOU do not want to mention Russia or China. You are aware both countries DO NOT WANT Iran to build nukes. But you prefer to say the UK is “racist” for also opposing any Iranin nukes.

  264. James Canning says:


    China wants North Korea to get rid of its nukes. Is this “racist”, in your view?

  265. fyi says:

    James Canning says:
    August 26, 2013 at 3:18 pm

    Arabs lost Al Quds and what was left of Palestine on the field of battle.

    They thus initiated the religious war between Judaism an Islam.

    For 60 years they have been running to the Americans – who are in love with Israel – begging them to get Israel to give them back what they lost in a war.

    The lessons of history are quite clear; only war will liberate Palestine; now or a 100 years from now.

    Peace is not possible and nor is Cease Fire.

    Without Strategic accommodation between Iran and US, the various wars across the Middle East will go on indefinitely.

    This much is also clear from the historical record.

  266. Karl.. says:


    If you want to live in your lies go ahead, but you wont persuade anyone here to believe you, anyone here could read the debunking of your claims here.

    Are you really that chavunistic that you cant even admit the racist core of western policies against arab and iranian people?

  267. nico says:

    “London, Jan 30 (ANI): The Obama administration gave green signal to a chemical weapons attack plan in Syria that could be blamed on President Bashar al Assad’s regime and in turn, spur international military action in the devastated country, leaked documents have shown.
    A new report, that contains an email exchange between two senior officials at British-based contractor Britam Defence, showed a scheme ‘approved by Washington’.As per the scheme ‘Qatar would fund rebel forces in Syria to use chemical weapons,’ the Daily Mail reports.Barack Obama made it clear to Syrian president Bashar al-Assad last month that the U.S. would not tolerate Syria using chemical weapons against its own people.
    According to, the December 25 email was sent from Britam’s Business Development Director David Goulding to company founder Philip Doughty.The emails were released by a Malaysian hacker who also obtained senior executives resumes and copies of passports via an unprotected company server, according to Cyber War News.According to the paper, the U.S. State Department has declined to comment on the matter. (ANI)”

    You to make your opinion about the poddibility of duch Anglo decidion based of those countries teack record…

  268. nico says:

    And what to think from this one ?

    “Qatari Military Officers Supplied Chemical Weapons to Syria Insurgents. Turkey was Informed.”

  269. nico says:

    Speaking of track record…

    “CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran”

  270. nico says:


    “Russia showed satellite images to UN Security Council proving the chemical missiles were launched by the opposition”

  271. Bussed-in Basiji says:


    Again, I recommend you come to Iran and visit the universities and seminaries and see for yourself the work that is being done in various areas of humanities and history. I think you would be pleasantly surprised.

    In terms of western civilization, obviously it’s still dominant- I mean here we are, two Iranians debating in English for years. But like I said, you just need to look at the failed corrupt political systems, structural economic decline and collapse of any sort of shared social morality and solidarity in western societies and the future is clear.

    It’s also obvious that Iran needs to do a lot of work but the main thing required for a civilizational renaissance occurred in Iran with Imam Khomeini’s movement and the victory of the Islamic Revolution, let’s call it: “overcoming slave mentality”.

    And this was done by following the Islam of Imam Hussein (as) not aping westerners- unlike Japanese, Russians or as some have argued, Germans, following WWII under the heading “the westernization of Germany”. You are making inaccurate historical analogies again because of your lack of direct knowledge of Iran.

    Imam (r) in his final testament said that we should not have any delusions that these large changes will occur overnight and that they will take time (I recommend you read it if you haven’t already).

    Anyway, all I can tell you is that many of my generation who went the through the difficult and beautiful things we went through in these decades have a wonderful feeling of deep satisfaction, achievement and pride when we look at our beloved Iran today and compare it to our- often romanticized- childhood.

    We laid the foundations for the rebirth of our great Islamic civilization with our beloved Iran as its core.

    I sincerely wish you had been more patient and had stayed and had shared in this wonderful experience with the rest of us.

    And btw, anytime you decide to return to your motherland you will be welcomed with open arms, even by evil ignorant hezbollahis like me.

  272. fyi says:

    Bussed-in Basiji says:
    August 26, 2013 at 3:58 pm

    In fact, I was attending a speech in MSA-PSG in which the speaker advised all of us who desired a comfortable life to stay in the United States.

    I admired his candor.

  273. nico says:

    No comment…

    NSA paid millions to cover Prism compliance costs for tech companies

    • Top-secret files show first evidence of financial relationship
    • Prism companies include Google and Yahoo, says NSA
    • Costs were incurred after 2011 Fisa court ruling

  274. James Canning says:


    I fail entirely to see what is “racist” about opposition to Iran’s building nukes.
    Please explain.

  275. James Canning says:


    Interesting posts. We could assume all along that various schemes would be put into play, in effort to bring about US/UK military intervention in Syria.

  276. James Canning says:


    The Conservatives were not in office in 2007. William Hague was not Foreign Secretary in 2007. David Cameron was not PM in 2007.

    Hague and Cameron came into office hoping to improve relations between UKJ and Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas. Full stop.

    Iran helped to wreck the plan. Sadly.

  277. James Canning says:


    I of course advocate normal relations between US and Iran, and between UK and Iran.

    And for Israel to end occupation of West Bank and Golan Heights.

    I very much doubt any military means are to hand, to get Israel out of occupied territories.

  278. James Canning says:


    Neocon warmongers encouraged Israel to spurn the 2002 Saudi peace plan. They thought they could take out Iraq and perhaps Iran, and Syria, so Israel could keep much of the West Bank and all of the Golan perhaps.

  279. Lysander says:

    Unknown Unknowns says:
    August 25, 2013 at 9:32 am

    Thanks a lot for that resource. It will be useful especially now as over the past few days I’ve felt very despondent and depressed about what will happen in Syria. After two and a half years, it seems the true suffering hasn’t even begun.

  280. Empty says:


    RE: In fact, I was attending a speech in MSA-PSG in which the speaker advised all of us who desired a comfortable life to stay in the United States. I admired his candor.”

    It behooves us to remember that “comfort” is in the eyes of the beholder. For example, every time I watched American bullets and bombs killing innocent people around the world and I realized that part of my salary and the taxes that I paid went directly into bullets to kill innocent people, I experienced pain and discomfort. So, I left the US because I desired a comfortable life. So, perhaps it was not his candor but his worldview that fits yours regarding what “comfort” means that you admired.

  281. Sineva says:

    Karl.. says:
    August 26, 2013 at 2:54 pm
    What they want when they say “better relationship” is an iran that is a compliant vassal state as it was back in the days of the shah ie iran as just another “arab dictatorship”,so really when you substitute that for “better relationship” the whole thing is pretty clear

  282. Sineva says:

    James Canning says:
    August 26, 2013 at 1:58 pm
    “That this in effect forced Iran to enrich to 20”
    That wasnt so hard to admit now was it?

  283. Sineva says:

    nahid says:
    August 26, 2013 at 10:05 am
    That is an excellent point

  284. Persian Gulf says:

    Can anyone here provide us with links for US, Britain, France..officials in 80s blaming Iran for using chem. weapons at the time Saddam was using them against Iranians and Iraqies?

  285. Karl.. says:


    You are right, “better relations” mean iranian submission to UK interests, because UK see iranians as inferior.

  286. M. Ali says:

    Empty says:
    August 26, 2013 at 10:52 pm

    “It behooves us to remember that “comfort” is in the eyes of the beholder.”

    I agree. I grew up in Dubai. On many levels, Dubai can be said to be much more comfortable than Iran, with the facilities, the customer service, the currency pegged to the dollar, the lack of surprises, the subcontinentals and the Philipinos at your complete whim, and then you have Tehran, with all the stress of daily life, the changes, the naggings, the lack of customer service, and such.

    Yet, I have felt more comfortable in Tehran in the last three years than I had most of my life being in Dubai.

    Of course, FYI’s specific point of view is, sadly, shared by most of the posters here. I don’t mean fyi’s point exactly, but the way he thinks that his view is the only view. Which is true for Smith who, with all his brilliant knowledge, can not tolerate opposing viewpoints, for Smith, Iran HAS to get NUKES NOW, no matter what circumstances, no matter what consequences, no matter what idealogies, no matter the debates, it has to happen NOW, or we’re all bi gheirats, unmanly sissies.

    Not that these guys alone, we also have Imam Ali’s fan club like Bussed in Basiji’s who are so completely in love with a specific idealogy that to even consider something else is almost blamesphous.

    I wanted to say that this was a specific Iranian trait, the inability to listen to opposing views, but then I remembered Smith with his 20% arguments that he has been predictably talking about for the last few years, that guy Roger with his predictions of war in the next few months for at least the last four years, and our old friend Scott Lucas needs no commentary.

    Maybe people like us who are interested in political debates are just narrowminded.

    This post turned out to be a rant, so apologies.

  287. Empty says:

    Persian Gulf,

    A review article was written by Javed Ali in Spring 2001 issue of in Nonproliferation Review Journal (see the link to the PDF of it below). It’s a good review (it’s dated though). The very good part is its extensive reference list in which you could follow links to claims (false claims) back then that Iran, too, was using chemical weapons. Though it became clear that Iran had not, most media outlets never retracted and never corrected their false story. [Need to remove the spaces at the beginning of the link].

    http : //

    Another interesting part is how the US entered into the so-called CW ban discussions just to lengthen a decision and votes on it (a criminal delay tactic) AFTER Iraq-Iran war ended.

    Hope it’s useful for your purpose.

  288. Empty says:

    M. Ali,

    It’s often difficult for us to properly manage that “I” in us and Satan is really good at deceiving us into thinking that our opinions are more accurate than they really are…. He swore to God that one of its methods is just that. Hopefully, we’ll learn to keep the temptation under a tight leash and Satan at a distance.

  289. A-B says:

    It’s more than obvious that the European/Western goal for MENA is to keep it in perpetual turmoil, and they achieve this by shamelessly implementing the same barbaric methods time and again, blaming it on fate; that it is just “history repeating itself!” Or, according to the Western fascists, it is in the ‘natural order’ for the West to rule, as it is East’s destiny to be ruled; or, it is either the hegemony of [foreign] West in the region or the ‘hegemony’ of Iran. But the difference is that Iran exercises her god-given right to EXIST and prosper in the region she belongs to: geographically, ethnically, culturally, historically, NATURALLY; unlike the Western aliens (who think Iran’s resources belong to them, and if the West can’t have them, nobody should have them; certainly not Iranians!) It is one thing to say “Fall of Man” in a ‘cosmogonical’ sense, but to knock over ‘man’ and keep him down perpetually to then blame it on his ‘fallen’ nature (or genes) is inherently anti-human. Whether this behavior can be explained or justified by ‘racism’, ‘tribalism’, ‘exceptionalism’ or other ‘–ism’ concocted by Western ‘philosophers’ is immaterial.

    Long ago, in other fora, I argued that the Anglo-American policy (i.e. methods to achieve a goal) towards MENA follows two complementary and self-fulfilling maxims; “if it is NOT broken, why fix it?” WRT their methods; and “if it IS broken, why fix it?” i.e. their goal for MENA. Of course, this means there were no ‘mistakes’ or ‘misunderstandings’ in attacking Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, as the Western ‘roze-khoon’ with PhD (i.e. pundits) want you to believe (no offense to real roze-khoon!!) I just heard a talking head on CNN ‘lamenting’ that West didn’t do anything to stop or punish Saddam when he used chemical weapons on the Kurds during the Iran-Iraq War; now, the West should not do the same ‘mistake’ in case of Assad!! And you would still believe they don’t know what they’re doing?! So, it is a deliberate implementation of same savage methods to an evil end; then blaming it on fate and the victims. This is evil by choice; a choice, one may argue, not even the Devil had!!

    Reminds me of a peripheral scene in an old Persian miniature showing a man mounting a camel .. hrrm …‘the wrong way’ (in an act of bestiality). You could see the head of a black-faced devil peeking out behind a rock watching the scene ‘angosht be dahan’ in a sign of dreadful amazement, depicting Jami’s writing when the devil scolds the depraved man by saying something like: “YOU are doing this [sin], but they will blame [curse] ME for it.”

  290. Sakineh Bagoom says:

    “I fail entirely to see what is “racist” about opposition to Iran’s building nukes.”

    The point IS, and I fail to see why you don’t see it, that YOU don’t get a SAY in the matter.
    Could Iran OPPOSE building of nukes by UK? US? Other countries?
    As a sovereign country Iran can do anything she wants. This is not to say that I advocate a nuke for Iran.

  291. fyi says:


    Evidently Mr. Feltman received nothing in Iran; he gained no traction for whatever proposal he had from Mr. Obama.

  292. Karl.. says:

    Did feltman went to Iran on behalf of the White House, to get information on how Iran would react to a possible war on Syria?

  293. masoud says:

    The jackals are bearing their teeth:

    Tayebnia said: “Building cheap houses for people is a sacred mission. However, the previous government raised the market liquidity from USD 22 billion to USD 145 billion in order to develop the Mehr Housing Scheme.”

    “Market liquidity ends in high inflation. Inflation is a problem that the Iranian people have struggled with for decades. In the past year, the country experienced 30 percent inflation, which affected the market and intimidated investors from investing in the market,” Tayebnia said.

    Tayebnia highlighted the role of the central bank, saying: “The government demanded a loan from the central bank for its subsidies plan. The biggest mistake the government made was that it did not repay its loan to the central bank.”

    “The subsidies plan has a USD 3.2 million budget deficit. We must either not pay the share of production and medicine, which is not rational, or put extra pressure on the energy sector, which is not in people’s interest. The third option is to cut people’s monthly share from the subsidies reform plan.”

    Tayebnia added: “We are planning to add new amendments to the current annual budget bill to find a solution for the budget deficit in order to continue paying people’s monthly share [IRR 455,000].”

  294. fyi says:

    Karl.. says:
    August 27, 2013 at 10:43 am

    I speculate that his instructions was to sound Iranians on Geneva II as well as getting Iranians to participate on some sort of international diplomatic effort on Syria in which US would be calling the shots.

    Iranians evidently demurred; their policy is war in Syria until the anti-Assad forces are destroyed.

    US strategy here is very analogous to her policy vis-à-vis Russia; “Selective Engagement”.

    Based on Russian experience, it is the road to ruination for Iran.

    I think Iranian leaders correctly have assessed that without broad strategic understanding with the United States, selective engagement only weaken their own positions.

    US attack on Syria harms the United States, in their view and it is not going to alter the situation on the ground.

    Please walk with me through a possible future:

    Axis Powers will attack by-now largely empty buildings in Syria with cruise missiles; might even through in a few bombing raids from Turkey and from US aircraft carriers.

    Those attacks will not alter the strategic situation.

    Now, let us assume the opposite, that the strategic situation changes and the Syrian government position weakens substantially.

    Then we are a situation in which the Christians, the sane Sunnis, the Alawites, the Druze, the Shia will coalesce around suburbs and neighborhoods in Aleppo, Damascus, Homs, etc.

    In my opinion, this is the worst that could happen; anti-government victory is not in the cards.

    Under these circumstances, a very similar situation to the Lebanese Civil War will prevail in which different cities and neighborhoods would become fortresses of this or that ethno-religious group; each supplied and supported by this or that foreign state.

    This condition could continue for decades.

    In my estimation, Iranian leaders have concluded that they could live with that type of situation.

    Eventually, various non-Syrian antagonists, Russia, US, EU, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran will tire of that and will convene some sort of an international gathering and try to end the civil war.

    As I said, this is the worst that could happen – and I do not expect it – but even the worst cannot wound Iran.

    I expect US to reprise the same actions that China took against Vietnam “teaching Vietnam a lesson” as the Chinese statement read at that time.

    “All sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

  295. fyi says:


    Dr. Friedman on US, Syria etc.

    And Dr. Trenin:

    I think Axis Powers will try to decapitate the Syrian Government and I also think they will fail.

    This and the situation in Egypt will consume the rest of Mr. Obama’s presidency – his domestic agenda will not move forward either.

  296. James Canning says:


    Iran should support a Syrian peace conference, with Iran participating.

    Iran is not able to speak to American officials direclty, to a large degree. Thanks of course to Israel lobby. A conference would enable some working around that problem.

    What conceivable “ruination” do you see for Iran, if Iran stops enriching to 20 for example? You said it would not injure Iran to the slightest degree, or something to that effect.

  297. James Canning says:


    Your analysis is flawed. The fact a country is “sovereign” does not mean it can uild nukes, or that it would be allowed to build nukes. Nothing “racist” in this fact.

  298. kooshy says:

    fyi says:
    August 27, 2013 at 10:09 am

    “Evidently Mr. Feltman received nothing in Iran; he gained no traction for whatever proposal he had from Mr. Obama.”

    Yes here you go fyi.

    After all come to think of it a managed Arab chaos situation in long term wouldn’t be as bad for Iran as it would be for US/Europe strategic standing. Evidently it looks like Iran and Russia would try to direct the western created chaos in the ME to further diminish and hurt western strategic standing by exposing their double standards and hypocrisy no matter if it’s their support for AL Qaeda, use of WMD etc, etc.. Come to think of it in the opinion of the world including western citizens the current moral capital of the western states is equal or lower to that of the USSR in 60’s and 70’s. Even with election of only 3 year in senate first black president (the noble man of change and hope) except for a very short period they were not able to change the world opinion favorably. One just need to pay attention and see how with every news in just this month (Snowden, surveillance, no coup, WMD, etc.) these western states had to publicly defend an immoral standing that they wished but couldn’t reverse therefore hypocritically had to defend in shame.

    ”In Tehran, U.N. Political Affairs Head Jeffrey D. Feltman, there for a regional security meeting, got an earful from Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, who warned Feltman, “The use of military means [against Syria] will have serious consequences not only for Syria but for the entire region,” according to an account by Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Abbas Araqchi given to reporters covering the event. (Araqchi went on to state that Russia had already submitted to the U.N. Security Council “proof” that Syrian rebels, not regime soldiers, had used chemical weapons.)”

    These kinds of apocalyptic warnings are to be expected in times of heightened tensions, and when it comes to Syria, not entirely misplaced. The Syrian conflict is multi-layered, pitting not just the regime against the opposition, but Islamists against secularists, Sunnis against the country’s religious minorities, Iranian-backed Hezbollah against Saudi Arabia-funded militias and an Iranian, Chinese and Russian axis against a Western coalition bent on regime change. The potential for a full-blown conflagration that could engulf the region in a drawn-out proxy war cannot be overlooked.

    Read more:

  299. James Canning says:


    I have stressed a number of times that the US in effect forced Iran to enrich U to 20.
    AND that I think the foolish assertion that Iran would be unable to produce fuel rods etc for TRR was a cover story.

  300. James Canning says:


    My gut feeling is that Jeffrey Feltman’s primary object is to advance the interests of Israel, whenever possible. Is this unfair?

  301. James Canning says:


    I can assure you that William Hague does not view Iran as “inferior”. Complete and total rubbish.

  302. James Canning says:


    I can assure you William Hague has no visions whatever of Iran as a “vassal state”. Total nonsense.

  303. Sakineh Bagoom says:

    Allow, allow, allow. Who will do the allowing?
    Iran was not ALLOWED centrifuges. Over 18000 are spinning today.

  304. fyi says:

    kooshy says:
    August 27, 2013 at 1:07 pm

    My sense of this is that US planners do not wish to consider a scenario under which either Russia or Iran or both would forcefully intervene in Syria.

    I think that to be wishful thinking; I am reminded of how China intervened to save the DPRK and prolonged the war.

  305. fyi says:

    James Canning says:
    August 27, 2013 at 1:15 pm

    Let us watch the debate in the Parliament on Thursday.

  306. fyi says:

    James Canning says:
    August 27, 2013 at 12:57 pm

    In my opinion, and evidently also the Iranian leaders, a conference on Syria at the present moment in time is not conducive to the Iranian interests; which is the destruction of the anti-Assad forces.

    A conference on broad strategic settlement on Afghanistan, Persian Gulf, Nuclear File could also include a discussion of Syria.

    I imagine that the Iranian leaders would be amenable to that.

    But Axis Powers are not.

    Axis Powers constitute roughly a billion people whose output could be harnessed – at time against their will – into this or that undertaking – however stupid or insane it might be.

    Axis Powers planners are working on that assumption; that they ought to be able to crush any an all opposition to their dominance of this planet.

    That they have failed repeatedly only means to them that the right technical approach was not selected.

    They are loath to admit their limits.

    So we will have more wars in the Middle East; potentially to the point that NATO will be fighting the Shia-Irani power from Hind Kush to the Mediterranean Sea.

    That is no loner an impossibility.

  307. James Canning says:


    Turkey supports Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Obama has been close to Erdogan. But Obama has not condemned Egyptian army’s crushing of the MB in Egypt.

    Notion of “control” simply does not apply. Control what?

    Iran would benefit from a Syrian peace conference, by having opportunity to discuss issues with European diplomats.

    Israel lobby will not allow direct dealing between the US and Iran. Sad fact of life.

  308. fyi says:

    James Canning says:
    August 27, 2013 at 2:00 pm

    You are “preaching to the choir” as the American saying goes in regards to the absence of control.

    However, that fact is not internalized by US and EU leaders.

    Iran will not cooperate with Axis Powers on selective issues; Iranian leaders – based on public statements – have concluded that Axis Powers’ leaders are devoid of Logic; that is: “Speech Informed by Reason”.

    This is war on multiple broad fronts; either the Shia-Irani power will be defeated or she will prevail.

    Once that outcome has been reached, the diplomats could be sent in to codify the outcome.

  309. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Pepe Escobar:

    Obama set for holy Tomahawk war

    “The Obama administration has ruled that Assad allowed UN chemical weapons inspectors into Syria, and to celebrate their arrival unleashed a chemical weapons attack mostly against women and children only 15 kilometers away from the inspectors’ hotel. If you don’t believe it, you subscribe to a conspiracy theory.”

    Like Professor Joyner declared me a “conspiracy theorist”…

    “Now, Israel and Saudi Arabia are oh so excited because they are getting exactly what they dream just by good ol’ Wag the Dog methods. Tel Aviv has even telegraphed how it wants it: this Monday, the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper headlined with ”On the Way to Attack” and even printed the ideal Order of Battle. (see photo)”

    “The Brits are already heavily spinning that no UN Security Council resolution is needed; who cares if we do Iraq 2.0? For the War Party, the fact that Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey said Syrian ”rebels” could not promote US interests seems to be irrelevant.

    Washington already has what it takes for the Holy Tomahawks to start flying; 384 of them are already positioned in the Eastern Mediterranean. B-1 bombers can be deployed from Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar. And bunker-busting bombs will certainly be part of the picture.”

  310. James Canning says:


    You can read various statements by Russian and Chinese officials, confirming that Iran should not try to build nukes.

  311. James Canning says:


    Should one note that the spinning of thousands of centrifuges actually has done a good deal to injure Iran’s economy?

  312. fyi says:

    Richard Steven Hack says:
    August 27, 2013 at 2:05 pm

    Let us watch and see how God will turn their tricks against them.

    I watched the same script in 1982.

    In 2006, finally, one could see the outcome.

  313. fyi says:

    James Canning says:
    August 27, 2013 at 2:08 pm

    No doubt, all wars are costly.

    Already capital markets all over the world have retreated and oil has gone up.

    The rest of the world is powerless against Axis Powers’ hare-brained schemes; they have to bear all these costs.

    This is good for Iran actually; it erodes the political power of Axis Powers globally; they have no coherent and plausible path to end wars in the Middle East.

    And they stand exposed.

  314. Richard Steven Hack says:

    There’s no “force” involved…

    Forcing Obama into a Prolonged Syrian War

    “Reportedly, the Saudi-Zionist discretely coordinated effort, confirmed by Congressional staffers working on the US House Foreign Affairs Committee as well and the US Senate Foreign Relations committee, is being led by Bandar protégé, Adel A. al-Jubeir, the current Saudi ambassador and facilitated by Bahrain ambassador Houda Ezra Ebrahimis Nonoo, who is the first Jewish person, and third woman to be appointed ambassador of Bahrain.Long known, for having myriad contacts at AIPAC HQ, and as an ardent Zionist, Houda Nonoo has attended lobby functions while advising associates that the ‘Arabs must forget about the so-called Liberation of Palestine. It will never happen.'”

    “In addition, the Prince and his partners insist that Iran will do nothing but complain because it has too much to lose. Iran will not response other than verbally and has no history of attacking the US or Israel and would not risk the unpredictable consequences of a military response by the Republic Guards or even some of its backed militia in Iraq or Syria. Sources in Tehran have reported otherwise to this observer.”

    Note: I’m inclined to agree with Bandar on this point…

    “Bandar has reportedly agreed that Israel can call the shots but that the air assault will be led by the US and involve roughly two dozen US allies including Turkey, the UK and France. The German weekly ‘Focus” reported on 8/26/13 that the IDF’s 8200 intelligence unlit bugged the Syrian leadership during the chemical weapons attack last week and that Israel ‘sold” the incriminating information to the White House.”

    “The Bandar/AIPAC arguments being, pushed by this delegation and being spread around capitol hill as part of “Israel sharing its sterling intelligence” can be summarized as follows:

    The US must avoid half measures to pursue a limited punitive response to the CW use. What is needed is a sustained Bosnia style bombing campaign until Bashar al-Assad is removed from office.”

    “Sources in Iran and Syria has advised this observers that they expect the US bombing to commence within 72 hours.”

  315. Richard Steven Hack says:

    For all those such as fyi who said it would “never happen”…

    US strike against Syria could come Thursday: NBC

  316. James Canning says:

    R S Hack,

    Can we be sure about “sterling intelligence” from Israel? I for one am not so sure.

  317. James Canning says:


    Yes, Iran does benefit from oil price increase, if the US foolishly launches attacks on Syria.

    So does Russia, on that score.

    But Iran and Russia sensibly oppose any US attack on Syria.

  318. Richard Steven Hack says:

    U.S. No Longer Seeking U.N., NATO Permission to Strike Syria

    Never expected them to, since Russia and China would veto anyway.

  319. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Exclusive: Syria strike due in days, West tells opposition – sources

  320. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Syria crisis: warplanes spotted in Cyprus as tensions rise in Damascus

  321. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Hah, reread that Franklin Lamb report – Bahrain’s Ambassador is JEWISH and works with Prince Bandar!

    Syrian rebels’ senior official says Israel must urge intervention,7340,L-4422162,00.html

  322. Richard Steven Hack says:

    fyi: 2006 was not an “outcome” – it was just one step which failed due to lack of preparation and overconfidence on Israel’s part.

    That said, I’m not sure Israel can defeat Hizballah now, either. However, this time it’s clear Israel will put forth a much greater effort and with the direct assistance of the US and NATO. All Israel has to do to succeed in its goal is push Hizballah further north so that the bulk of the remaining missiles cannot hit all of Israel. Any success in that line will make it worth while for Israel, especially if Syria’s missiles are degraded as well by the US and NATO. This will reduce the cost of an Iran war to Israel sufficiently to make it feasible for Netanyahu to start it.

    That has been the entire purpose of this exercise and within X months we shall see if they can achieve it.

  323. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Note that the US is talking about only “three days” of cruise missile strikes against Syria at this point.

    However, I don’t see that being the end of it. Either they will strike for a short while, then wait until later for the main air campaign, or like Libya they will simply expand the campaign immediately into an extended air campaign. That is what the war-mongers like McCain want them to do.

    And that is what they will have to do to achieve the goal of degrading Syria’s missile arsenal. Because to do that, they have to take out ALL of Syria’s air defenses, at the very least. So they have no choice but to conduct a major air campaign lasting weeks or months.

    They also have to keep Syria’s military pinned down so that Israel can cross Syrian territory and invade Lebanon through the Bekaa Valley. Israel can probably do that by themselves, but Israel undoubtedly will prefer to have the cover of US and NATO air strikes. Israel may even intend the US and NATO to attack Hizballah at some point in support of Israel. It will be easy for Obama to justify that by claiming that Hizballah is “moving Syrian chemical weapons” or some other lie.

  324. Sakineh Bagoom says:

    “You can read various statements by Russian and Chinese officials, confirming that Iran should not try to build nukes.”

    Are they NOT ALLOWING Iran or is that just rhetoric?

  325. James Canning says:


    There is no reason to doubt all six powers (P5+1) do not want Iran to build nukes. (Not the Iran wants to build them.)

  326. James Canning says:

    R S Hack,

    I too did not expect the US to insist it obtain UN or even Nato approval, before attacking Syria.

    I agree American warmongers would want much much more than the launching of a few cruise missiles.

  327. Persian Gulf says:

    Empty says:
    August 27, 2013 at 8:07 am