The Syrian Crisis and America’s Counterproductive Quest for Middle Eastern Hegemony


Earlier this week, before President Obama’s September 10 address on Syria and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov’s proposal to place Syria’s chemical weapons under international control, Hillary used a CNN interview, see here, to go beyond near-term analysis of unfolding developments and examine what the Syria crisis says about America’s current standing in international affairs—and how the choices Washington makes regarding Syria will have enormous consequences for America’ strategic trajectory moving forward. 

In the current context, Hillary explains, the real strategic problem for the United States is that  

after invading Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya—each one of them less and less effectively, with more and more blowback—we are now in the position, I think, that if we attack Syria, with what President Obama has planned, it will show the world that U.S. military might, our political power, and our economic power are seriously declining.” 

Indeed, Hillary argues, the most strategically consequential effects of U.S. military action against Syria would be to underscore how much American power has declined in relative terms, just since the 9/11 attacks a dozen years ago:   

“If we decide to strike, there is no victory, there is no military victory; it will be a failure.  Even President Obama is not claiming there is a military solution to this, that he is proposing.  He is saying that there just needs to be a message sent—punishment.  Nobody out there claims, puts forward, that there is a victory.  What this shows the world is that after Afghanistan, after Iraq, after Libya, the United States is less and less able, less and less capable of pulling off what it says it needs to pull off—militarily, politically, and economically.” 

If the United States continues with this not just quixotic but grossly counterproductive quest for regional hegemony, Hillary notes,

“This could be the nail in the coffin for American influence in the Middle East.  We have seen a precipitous decline in U.S. influence over the past decade.  We have squandered so much, so fast, that I think historians will look back and be stupefied that we have used our military force, unconstrained, to go into countries that we don’t understand, trying to force political outcomes that, time and time again, were shown not possibleWe couldn’t do it in Afghanistan, we couldn’t do it in Iraq, we couldn’t do it in Libya, and we keep trying.  And each time we try, we come out weakerWe [remain] interested in forcing a political outcome with our military force—something that we have now seen, over and over and over again, is not working.”      

The counterproductive consequences of unilaterally asserting hegemonic prerogatives through the exercise of military force is also an important theme in a richly interesting interview that the Islamic Republic of Iran’s new foreign minister, Javad Zarif, gave to Press TV on September 11 (the day after Obama’s address), see here.  The interview is worth watching in its entirety; we want to focus on Zarif’s observations on the Syrian situation and its ramifications for America’s regional and international standing. 

Talking about U.S. charges that Syrian government forces used chemical weapons on August 21 and the Obama administration’s threats to use military force in response, Zarif said,     

“The use of chemical weapons is a crime, we believe it is a crime against humanity, but we believe that also the use of force, the threat of use of force, is also a criminal offense in international law.  Unfortunately it seems to me that the United States seems to be living in the 19th century when the use of force was a prerogative of states; it is not…When [the President of the United States] concedes, as he did last night before the American people, that there is no imminent or direct threat against the United States, then the United States doesn’t have any standing under any provision of international law, to take law in its own hands.” 

Zarif then extends his analysis to make a truly important point:   

There is a need for the United States to come to the realization, and I believe this is an important realization for the United States, that not only the use of force is illegal, that not only the threat of force is against a preemptory international norm of law, but also and more importantly the use of force is ineffectiveForce has lost its utility in international relations and it lost its utility a long time ago.

In 1928, civilized countries decided to reject the use of force as an instrument of national policy; before then, force or war was an instrument of national policy, they thought that war was diplomacy by another means.  But since then, the international community has come to its senses, believing that the use of force doesn’t provide the necessary outcome that those who started it wanted to provide and wanted to produce and that is why they have outlawed the use of force.  It is not a bunch of idealistic lawyers who sat down and banned the use of force, but in fact because of the reality that it has lost [its] utility.

Let me just tell you that in the 20th century, 85 percent of the cases, where a country resorted to force, have resulted in that country either being annihilated or not achieving the intended consequences of the war, so that shows to you empirically that force is no longer effective.  I hope that the United States, which is the mightiest country on the face of the earth, would come to this realization that it is important to use other means of influence; force is no longer effective.” 

Among the more striking things about the last couple of weeks is that, after August 21, much of America’s political class was initially still inclined to support President Obama’s call for illegal U.S. aggression against Syria.  Likewise—as Hillary experienced first-hand, see here—much of the mainstream media comported themselves with roughly the same paltry measure of journalistic rigor that they applied to critiquing the George W. Bush administration’s case for invading and occupying Iraq in 2003.  But, for once, the American public rejected a sitting administration’s case for war—and rejected it overwhelmingly, according to polls, to a point where even many congressmen and senators not normally recognized as profiles in courage understood that they needed to stiff the president on this one.  

We don’t know yet if Americans’ rejection of Obama’s call for illegal and strategically dysfunctional U.S. military action against Syria represents the beginning of a true sea change in popular attitudes about American foreign policy.  Perhaps it was simply the product of a contingent concatenation of circumstances—post-Iraq/(not quite) post-Afghanistan/post-Libya “war weariness,” frustration with a slow economic recovery and an uncertain long-term economic future, recognition that (this time around, anyway) the President’s case for war was intellectually and strategically empty.  But perhaps Americans are at least at the start of a real learning curve. 

Only time will tell.  And there’s still so much work to do if America is to have at least some shred of a chance to make better strategic and moral choices about how it deals with the rest of the world.     

–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett



591 Responses to “The Syrian Crisis and America’s Counterproductive Quest for Middle Eastern Hegemony”

  1. Kooshy says:

    James Canning says:
    September 13, 2013 at 4:04 pm

    “I will check for a link. The Chinese president’s visit to the Gulf got a fair amount of press coverage.”

    Gav James

    Can you promise not to post any more wishful UK BS unless you can proof the the false BS insertion you made abut the Chinese President telling Arabs about Iran’s 20% U.
    Gav- Sahab Jaan , that’s not much to ask is it?
    Why don’t you , FYI and RSH take a little brake and stay away BSing the board
    Don’t you think that constitutionally is fair ?

  2. James Canning says:


    Your implicit contention China supports Iranian enrichment to 20 is dead wrong. From what I understand.

  3. Kooshy says:

    BiBiJon says:
    September 13, 2013 at 5:16 pm
    Re: Christiane Amanpour”

    A lot of Israel firsters are really angry of Obama’s handling of Syria’s war they feel abandoned and betrayed since these and SKA paid journalist invested so much prestige and efforts endorsing the war. I heard some like Norman Podhoretz are privately asking for his impeachment.

  4. James Canning says:

    Rouhani told Putin today Iran wants the nuclear dispute resolved but made clear Iran wants its right to enrich U to be recognised. Reuters.

  5. Kooshy says:

    James Canning says:
    September 13, 2013 at 6:21 pm

    Before you get the chance to post comments here again don’t your British gentleman-ship feel obliged to fill the request for blunder you made earlier on Chinese president’s telling Arabs he don’t want Iranian 20% U. Or you think we should set that aside for now, your call?

  6. James Canning says:

    China Daily reports Rouhani proposed next round of nuclear talks be held in New York.

  7. James Canning says:


    I stand by my statement China opposes enrichment to 20, by Iran. You have evidence to contrary?

  8. James Canning says:


    Azerbaijan report ( June 25: “On June 18, Laavrov said that Iran has confirmed it is prepared to halt its enrichment of 20-percent uranium.”

  9. Fiorangela says:

    Two University of Pittsburgh professors, Taylor Seybolt from the School of International Affairs, and Jules Lobel, a Constitutional Law professor, discussed US re Syria in a radio interview. (Seybolt has served as an advisor to the Genocide Prevention Task Force, co-chaired by Madeleine Albright and William Cohen. Lobel co-authored the award winning book, Less Safe, Less Free: Why America is Losing the War on Terror (2007) with Professor David Cole of Georgetown University.

    The set-up by host Paul Guggenheimer was disconcerting: he compared the “war weariness” of Americans today and their resistance to military action against Syria, to America’s “isolationist” sentiment in the run-up to World War II. It sounded like Lynne Olson’s “Those Angry Days: Roosevelt, Lindbergh, and America’s Fight Over World War II, 1939-1941” was the script that the US was expected to follow in this current situation.

    If that is the case, be aware that there are still plenty of tricks up the sleeves of the “interventionists.”

  10. Kooshy says:

    James Canning says:
    September 13, 2013 at 6:32 pm

    “I stand by my statement China opposes enrichment to 20, by Iran. You have evidence to contrary?”


    Thank you very much,that will do for me, you know your honor’s standing is as good as any, its like me having my weigh in gold just like that, now I am relived that I know I have got the true bottom line facts.
    Good bless the queen and David Cam and billy boy and the UJ

  11. Rehmat says:

    On September 11, 2013, Russian president Vladimir Putin in an Op-Ed, at the New York Times warned Obama administration that any military action without the blessing of the United Nations will jeopardize the US and its allies’ (Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the Gulf states) interests in the region. He also asserted that an attack without UN approval could be a death-blow to the United Nations itself as happened to the League of Nations after the WW II.

    “A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance,” wrote president Putin.

  12. fyi says:

    Rehmat says:
    September 13, 2013 at 8:28 pm

    A discussion of US reaction to Mr. Putin’s essay:

    Americans are too degenerated too take this life line thrown at them by Mr. Putin.

    We will know differently if the Peace of Yalta is renegotiated – removing US Barons – UK and France – from UNSC.

  13. Jay says:

    James Canning says:
    September 13, 2013 at 1:17 pm


    returning to our very fruitful exchange from the previous thread…

    In summary, I asked about the position of the UK vis-a-vis international law, rights, and responsibilities.

    Your response, in summary, amounts to, the position of the UK being that Iran should make a deal that is acceptable to the American administration – a deal that appeases the Americans.

    I think you agree that the appeasement policy of Neville Chamberlain with respect to international relations with Germany was not a success!

    I am now asking for a statement of principle from you, and a speculation regarding the worth of any agreement under the proposed regime of “deal that appeases the Americans” or anybody else for that matter.

  14. Sakineh Bagoom says:

    “I stand by my statement China opposes enrichment to 20, by Iran. You have evidence to contrary?”

    It was so much fun to cut and paste this.

    I stand by my statement that Iran wants to nuke the world. You have evidence to contrary?

  15. BiBiJon says:

    Washington Week, talking ‘degenerate’

    Watch the vid above.

  16. Persian Gulf says:


    You might have good points to make regarding Nazis. but putting Jews’ question aside, which is often not a concern for non-European people, wasn’t dangerous territorial expansion by Nazis a fundamental problem? not everyone is looking at WW II from the prism of Jews’ question.

  17. kooshy says:

    Mr. Putin really pushed the American’s nerve with his point to American Exceptionalism hypocrisy, it was about time from a world leader

  18. Fiorangela says:

    Persian Gulf,

    The quick answer is Yes.
    There’s nuance, however.

    According to Herbert Hoover in “Freedom Betrayed,” Hitler had three driving ideas:

    1. “to unify Germany from its fragmentation by the Treaty of Versailles
    2. “to expand its physical resources by moving into Russia or the Balkan States — a drive for “Lebensraum,” living space
    3. “to destroy the Russian Communist government.”

    Hoover, and the many other European leaders and diplomats Hoover spoke with in an extended tour in 1938, understood Hitler’s ambitions; some even had a grudging understanding of the need for German food security: Germany had suffered grievously from the Allied blockade in WWI so German leaders sought agricultural resources in places that were beyond reach of British navy. Hoover, etc. also believed that if Western European states did not antagonize Germany, then Germany would not engage them. It was not Germany’s intention to touch any western European state — Hitler respected Great Britain and sought a nonviolent relationship w/ UK.

    Hitler was also determined not to contend with the French, even after France demanded reparations payments and re-occupied territories in the Rhineland to enforce that demand. Hitler did not move to chase out the French.

    Hitler’s attack on Poland is claimed, from the German side of the balance, to have been motivated by the necessity of liberating German Nationals who found themselves in Polish territory after Versailles shifted borders. The NSDAP did attempt to negotiate a settlement with Polish authorities but was unsuccessful. An argument can be made that the Jewish economic war on Germany sabotaged relations between Poland and Nazi Germany to the extent that diplomacy was impossible. To that point, Edwin Black writes in “The Transfer Agreement”–

    “Quickly, the leaders of Germany realized that the anti-Hitler boycott was threatening to kill the Third Reich in its infancy, either through utter bankruptcy or by promoting an imminent invasion of Germany by its neighbors. When the Nazis consolidated power in early March, Polish officials openly reinforced troop strength along the Polish Corridor. This was in response to der Fuhrer’s bellicose threats to seize the Versailles-created territorial bridge. In lat March, the anti-Nazi boycott helped push Poland from a heightened defensive posture to a near-hysterical readiness to invade Germany.

    On April 7 [1933] Hitler was briefed by key officials about the Reich’s perilous condition in the wake of the accelerating anti-Nazi backlash. Emphasizing that various neighbors were actively contemplating a preventive war with Germany while she was still weak, [Foreign Minister] von Neurath told Hitler, “The gravity of the dangers threatening us should not be underestimated.” Foremost among the potential invaders was Poland, determined to preempt any territorial compromise.” [p. 110]

    “Those Angry Days,” Lynne Olson’s account of the tremendous conflict in the US over whether US should go to war in Europe, makes no mention of Churchill’s geopolitical ambitions as it argues throughout that the reason for demanded intervention was to save Great Britain, and thereby save “western civilization as we know it.”

    “Britain’s survival was absolutely essential for our security and welfare. If the British were defeated and Hitler controlled all of Europe, he would then move to dominate Africa and infiltrate South America,** thus posing a serious threat to the United States. America, the interventionists argued, would have little chance to survive as a free, democratic society.

    Others in the interventionist camp emphasized what they viewed as America’s moral obligation to stop Hitler—the embodiment, as they saw it, of pure evil. How could we stand on the sidelines, they argued, while Nazi Germany enslaved sovereign countries, went on a rampage against Jews, and threatened to wipe out Western civilization as we know it?”

    Charles Lindbergh held a similar view but from the opposite perspective. Olson writes —

    “Uninterested in moral questions, Lindbergh believed that France and England had no choice but to come to terms with Germany, no matter how distasteful those terms might be. “If England and Germany enter another major war on opposite sides,” he declared, “Western civilization may fall as a result,” leaving the door open for incursions by the Soviet Union and Communism.” [p 20]

    While the short answer to your question is Yes, with caveats, an expanded answer takes into account the territorial and other ambitions of the other major players, most notably, Winston Churchill. The British leader had the last chance to stop a war, was least prepared and financially able to wage war, but was most determined to enter war with Germany in order to protect and expand the British empire, with special ambitions in the Middle East. His agenda prevailed, but Hoover and Lindbergh appear to have had the most realistic assessment of the probable outcomes.

    Olson portrays Roosevelt as weak, vacillating, ambivalent about coming to the aid of Great Britain. But in his book on the era, “FDR and the End of Empire,” Christopher O’Sullivan makes the case that FDR was determined to break up the British empire, stymy Churchill’s ambitions, and engage in mutually respectful and beneficial relations with the Arab states and Iran — especially Iran. What Olson sees as ambivalence may have been FDR resisting being pushed into the corner where he was ultimately trapped.
    = = =

    ** Life magazine ran stories detailing — with graphs, maps and photos — how, after conquering Europe and Africa, fascist forces would occupy Brazil, raid the Panama Canal, bomb Caribbean Islands, destroy America’s Atlantic fleet, occupy Cuba, invade the U.S. mainland where the “victorious Fascist army” would march up Market Street in Wilmington, Delaware while tanks and infantry overpowered forces in Pittsburgh… Washington and New York would fall … East Coast industries would be overrun…” After weeks and months of such “education,” one poll showed that “63% of Americans believed that if Germany succeeded in conquering Britain and France, it would then try to seize territory in the Americas.” Documents substantiating the fears of a German force massing in South America were circulated in the War and State Departments. They were later found to be the work of British propagandists working out of Canada.

  19. M. Ali says:

    In the last article, I posted that this giving up of Syria’s CW will be used to somehow “prove” Assad’s role in the last attacks. Well, I already notice arguments being made for it, such as this paragraph from Washington Post,

    “This is Putin’s big argument: Let’s follow through on the Russian plan to have Syria give up its chemical weapons in exchange for the United States not attacking. And Obama is clearly interested.

    It’s hard to miss, though, that this appears to strongly contradict Putin’s claim that rebels were responsible for the chemical weapons attack. As Huffington Post reporter Sam Stein tweets, “Putin’s oped argues: 1. The rebels used chemical weapons, not Assad. 2. Let’s encourage Assad to give up his weapons (no mention of rebels).”

  20. Karl.. says:


    Do you have a link to this statement:

    ““You think the civil war in Syria had nothing to do with Gulf Arab fears of war in the Gulf?””

    Or are you making up as usual?

  21. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Iran Cuts Stockpile of 20% Uranium


    “Although we know the nuclear case against us is fabricated, we are ready to relieve the other side’s concern,” Salehi said.

    End Quote

  22. Karl.. says:


    “I stand by my statement China opposes enrichment to 20, by Iran. You have evidence to contrary?”

    Do you have “evidence” for this or are you lying as usual?

  23. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Syrian opposition may attack Israel with chemical weapons, Asad tells Russian TV

    Naturally, Cole declares – without any logical argument or evidence – that “This is not a plausible theory.” Thereby abandoning any pretense of rationality completely.

  24. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Assad guilty of crimes against humanity, says UN chief Ban Ki-Moon

    Declares “UN report next week would provide “overwhelming” confirmation that chemical weapons had been used in Syria” – without actually saying it was done by Assad.

    “He also gave a UN estimate that 1,400 people were killed in the attack at Ghouta, east of Damascus.”

    So we can see Ban is now on board with an attack on Syria.

  25. Pirouz says:

    I get the impression the only reason Kerry publicly threw away his military medals after returning stateside from Vietnam, was he reckoned he’d get laid a heckuva lot easier by doing so.

    Certainly these days it must be obvious to most everybody that principles weren’t involved, just like those Repub’ “swiftboaters” said back in ’04.

  26. Sineva says:

    Well said,but you are wasting your breath

  27. Sineva says:

    Jay says:
    September 13, 2013 at 8:58 pm
    Well said,but you are wasting your breath

  28. nico says:


    Excerpt from Herman Melville’s “white-jacket”published in 1850.

    It provides interesting insight into like-minded people mental illness and into US group/mass people dynamic of thinking.

    In addition it gives embeded in a nutshell proof of the clear parenthood of protestantism and judaism.

    Actually protestantism is closer to judaism than catholicism in that in judaism and protestantism the believer thinks he is chosen or elected by god.In judaism and protestantism the believer thinks he is above the non believer.Protestant and more so judaism are racist religions.

    To the opposite, catholics think they are creatures of god, like all that exist that is god creation.
    For a proof of that you just need to look for the Valladolid Controversy.

    I guess the true devision is between exceptionalists and universalists.
    And in Islam the wahabis are the exceptionalists.

    Now you to guess why jews, protestants and wahabis are in bed !

    “Escaped from the house of bondage, Israel of old did not follow after the ways of the Egyptians. To her was given an express dispensation; to her were given new things under the sun. And we Americans are the peculiar, chosen people–the Israel of ourtime; we bear the ark of the liberties of the world. Seventy years ago we escaped from thrall; and, besides our first birthright–embracing one continent of earth–God has given tous, for a future inheritance, the broad domains of the political pagans, that shall yet come and lie down under the shade of our ark, without bloody hands being lifted. God has predestinated,mankind expects, great things from our race; and great things wefeel in our souls. The rest of the nations must soon be in ourrear. We are the pioneers of the world; the advance-guard, senton through the wilderness of untried things, to break a new pathin the New World that is ours. In our youth is our strength; inour inexperience, our wisdom. At a period when other nations havebut lisped, our deep voice is heard afar. Long enough, have webeen skeptics with regard to ourselves, and doubted whether, indeed, the political Messiah had come. But he has come in us, ifwe would but give utterance to his promptings. And let us always remember that with ourselves, almost for the first time in the history of earth, national selfishness is unbounded philanthropy;for we can not do a good to America but we give alms to the world.”

    Good you have the answer…
    Yes, the wahabi, the extremist anglo-protestant and the zionist jews are of the same kind of extremist exceptionalists.
    No need to say that they are the same kind of terrorist (state or non state), inquisitary thugs and racist.

    As for the catholicism (truly helleno-christianism) it has been destroyed by Vatican II, atheism and judeo-christians (truly christian protestants and zionists).

    As for Islam it is quit ironic of you to bundle all sects as the same and condemn Iran as a Islamic disaster.
    Obviously shiism is the main universalist, tolerant, progressive and logical/intelectual sect in Islam.

    As for the atheist enlightment it clearly has its roots in catholicism as proven by its universalism (opposed to the judeo-protestant election).
    The issue with the enlightment is that it has no transcendance in it.
    At the end of the day it is sustained by catholic transcendance. Which is dying away.
    Thus the enlightment is turning rotten and satanic by losing all morality to the benefit of materialism and the god Money.

    The issue is that you mix all those notions and concepts in your ideological extremism and heinous position against Islam.
    Why that ?

    My take is that you are an admirer of material succes and the western material success blinds you.
    In another hand I think you are brainwashed in a slave mentality, you are convinced by western superiority and you are heinous against Islamic states current weakness.
    And lastely you are likely from some kind of minority and you suffer from it.

  29. Karl.. says:

    Ok so now Syria agreement is finished, Syria gave CW and was not given anything in return…huge blunder.

  30. nico says:

    Karl.. says:
    September 14, 2013 at 6:33 am
    “Ok so now Syria agreement is finished, Syria gave CW and was not given anything in return…huge blunder.”

    My take is that it was a smart move.

    It consolidate the shia crescent moral high ground and soft power while mud is thrown at the judeo-protestant-wahabi face who used, use, stockpiled and continue to stockpile CW.

    The power axis is truly painted for what it is. The fascist axis.

  31. nico says:

    James Canning says:
    September 13, 2013 at 5:55 pm

    “Kooshy,Your implicit contention China supports Iranian enrichment to 20 is dead wrong. From what I understand.”

    Laughable and seriously solid BS.
    China stated during the current SCO meeting to support Iran right to enrich under NPT.
    Since 20% is legal under NPT, that Iran needs the fuel for civilian purpose and that delivery of that fuel was denied by the Fascist axis.
    Well, China support the 20% and already stated time and again that Iran rights should be respected and tht no additional UNSC shall be supported by China.

    Your assertion is only coming out of thin air.
    Or I should rather say from your obvious mental illness.

  32. Karl.. says:


    There is no win at all for Syria, and this will be obvious when the UN report comes this monday. It will be portrayed that Assad is behind it and then the warmongering is on again. People seems to be naive to think that US now will stop its war on Syria.

  33. nico says:

    James Canning says:
    September 13, 2013 at 7:08 pm
    “Kooshy,Azerbaijan report ( June 25:
    “On June 18, Laavrov said that Iran has confirmed it is prepared to halt its enrichment of 20-percent uranium.””

    Sure Iran is stockpiling enough 20% to run its research reactor until decommissioning…
    So Iran is only making apparent concession to save the Fascist axis already mudded face.
    What is important is what Iran officially commit to do in a treaty. Not what will be presented as a non bidding voluntary gesture.

    Their is ZERO chance Iran to abandon its right under NPT and to not enrich again at 20% ever again. ZERO.

    The Fascist axis has lost the nuclear gambit. That much is sure.
    What is left is face saving or war.

  34. nico says:

    Karl.. says:
    “September 14, 2013 at 7:32 am
    nicoThere is no win at all for Syria, and this will be obvious when the UN report comes this monday. It will be portrayed that Assad is behind it and then the warmongering is on again. People seems to be naive to think that US now will stop its war on Syria.”

    But the resistance axis still has the moral high ground while the fascist axis is mudded.
    The war was preplanned anyway.
    Now it is important to win th hearts.

    As proven in all the ME war by the Fascist axis and as explained by the Leveretts and Zarif firce is useless anyway.
    What is important is the political high ground and effective narative to cobtrol the after war.

    The Fascist axis has already lost on this front.
    That is what is important.

  35. BiBiJon says:

    Richard Steven Hack says:
    September 13, 2013 at 4:10 pm

    BiBiJon: “Richard, really? “Carrier Killer” helps evacuation?” Counters Turkey? Come on man. What is your agenda spamming nonsense here?”

    Look, stupid. If you haven’t been paying attention to the fact that most of the Russian ships in the Med right now are landing craft and other ships designed to aid evacuation, I can’t help you.

    The missile cruiser is there as the Russians said: to back up the other ships if necessary. Of course, it’s a minor threat to the US Navy as well – but Russia is not going to launch missiles from a single Russian missile cruiser at a US carrier battle group.

    Don’t be an idiot.


    Richard, I hope you don’t mind if I call you a genius, please have pity on lesser intellects who, as I was, are easily fooled by plain English.

    E.g. according to

    “The navy will increase its group in the Mediterranean until it reaches self-sufficiency in issues relating to the achievement to the set tasks. The tasks are very clear: to avoid the slighter threat to the borders and security of the state. It’s [a] common practice for all fleets of the world: to be present in places where the level of tensions rises,” the commander-in-chief of the Russian navy, Admiral Viktor Chirkov, told reporters.


    I now understand what Admiral Viktor Chirkov really means is evacuation maneuvers. I have to confess I am jealous, and I wish I had a brain the size of yours.

    The RT report I linked in the previous thread says:

    Currently there are seven warships deployed in the area: landing craft carriers ‘Aleksandr Shabalin’, ‘Admiral Nevelskoy’, ‘Peresvet’, ‘Novocherkassk’ and ‘Minsk’ from Russia’s Black and Baltic Sea Fleets, as well as the escort vessel ‘Neustrashimy’, and large anti-submarine ship ‘Admiral Panteleyev’.

    With analytical skills even beginning to approach yours, I would have immediately seen that “most of the Russian ships in the Med right now are landing craft.”

    Richard, thanks, and do continue to be brilliant.

  36. BiBiJon says:

    There’s piece by Marc Lynch

    Which I think brings out an important, and recently under-mentioned, analysis of Obama’s ME policy co-travelers.

    Lynch is talking about the unsavory characters of the (P)GCC. Add to that Turkey’s less than popular Erdogan, and you begin to sense the deep isolation Obama must have felt when he was being (un)decisive about the Syrian affair.

  37. Rehmat says:

    Abraham Foxman, top Israeli propagandist and head of Anti-Defamation League (ADL), in an Op-Ed, published by CNN on September 12, 2013, urged Obama administration to strike Iran in case the US wants to regain its credibility and leadership in the world.

  38. nico says:

    Source : Military Times.
    To the list of skeptics who question the need for air strikes against Syria, add an another unlikely group — many U.S. troops. “I haven’t heard one single person be supportive of it,” said an Army staff sergeant at Fort Hood who asked not to be identified by name. A Military Times survey of more than 750 active-duty troops this week found service members oppose military action in Syria by a margin of about three to one.
    The survey conducted online Monday and Tuesday found that about 75 percent of troops are not in favor of air strikes in response to reports that the Syrian government used chemical weapons to kill civilians in that country.

  39. Fiorangela says:

    nico says: September 14, 2013 at 6:08 am

    extraordinary insights, nico. Thank you.


    “As for the catholicism (truly helleno-christianism) it has been destroyed by Vatican II, atheism and judeo-christians (truly christian protestants and zionists).”

    two points —
    1. Putin’s use of a religious theme in his letter to NYT was important. It suggests the resurgence of Russian Orthodox piety that is the backbone of Russian culture — “Crime and Punishment” is more spiritually instructive and ennobling than many of the psalms that we used to chant (in Latin, which was a good thing: the music, Gregorian chant, was beautiful, but the words, the sentiment was not readily understood; i.e. all the “kill them but bless me” did not make its way through the Latin language barrier). You mentioned “hellenic Catholicism,” and if I understand correctly, Russian Christianity emerged from Byzantium.

    2. Yes, in my old-fashioned view, Vatican II was harmful to Catholicism. But it was a confluence of events — Vat II happened at a time when baby boomers were just coming of age. More of them went to college, thanks in part to post-WWII prosperity and GI Bill that had helped their parents climb the ladder.

    Also harmful to Catholicism, in my view, is the impact of an Italian Catholic nun from my old ‘hood: Mother Angelic started EWTN, the Eternal Word Television Network, that hosted (and still does, I think) a whole cast of preachers and talking heads who are converts from Protestant evangelical denominations. They bring their evangelicalism with them and distort Catholicism with it, and this evangelicalized message is broadcast around the world on the radio/TV network Angelica started. Incidentally, she got her major boost from Pat Robertson, when that televangelist was at the first level of his success in television evangelism. Now, there are many projects to ‘bring Catholics back to the Bible,” which is not the intellectual foundation we older Catholics grew up on — We learned Baltimore Catechism, which is Aristotle blessed by the pope and rendered in a Q and A form. Yes, hellenic-Catholicism.

  40. nico says:

    Fiorangela says:
    September 14, 2013 at 10:27 am

    At the end of the day what was armfull to catholicism is the exact same atheist abd free mason thinking carried by fyi.

    That thinking penetrated the highiest echelon of the church.

    The issue is that the church lost faith in Jesus teaching !

    And Shiism would follow the exact same fate if by sticking to fyi “advices”.

  41. nico says:

    Fiorangela says:
    September 14, 2013 at 10:27 am

    I did not call catholicism as hellenic to somehow link it to orthodox christians.
    I call it hellenic as the old greece being the civilizational parent if Rome.

    In our time we hear things like the judeo-christian civilization.
    Which I think is a fraud when applied to catholicism.

    The catholicism and judaism or fundamentally opposed.
    Protestantism and judaism are related.

  42. Fiorangela says:

    nico, I think I understood that you were linking catholicism to the ancient greek tradition — they used to call it Graeco-Roman. I don’t know much about Russian Orthodox Christianity, but I thought it emerged from Rome’s Eastern empire, Constantine, and Byzantium, thus it too is linked to the Greek tradition.

    Yes yes, the ‘graeco roman’ tradition is fundamentally different from the evangelically linked Judeo-Christian (artificial) construct.

    I don’t know much at all about Islam. I’ve never read the Quran (in translation). I’ve read a few histories of the life of Mohammad and the development of Islam, and formed the idea that Mohammad’s inclusion of a tie to Abraham and to the Hebrew scriptures and the New Testament was a diplomatic accommodation — my understanding is that Mohammad was well known for his skills as a mediator and diplomatic negotiator. So in my very uninformed understanding of Islam, I do not see Hebrew scriptures as essential to Islam. Certainly the myths that informed Mohammad would have been similar to those in the Hebrew books, but I think the direction and spirit of the Quran is radically different from Hebrew scriptures, certainly, and perhaps an advance over the rather patchy and contradictory ideas in the various books in the New Testament. Perhaps Mohammad was among the first who, like Thomas Jefferson, sought the essential Jesus and cut away all the think-tank position papers that are the Epistles.

    You’re right — Catholicism has failed to focus on the essential teaching of Jesus.

  43. Persian Gulf says:


    Your points are well taken. but they can’t be used to justify Nazis’ actions. Hitler is the big brother of Saddam. Can anyone in his right mind really justify Saddam’s actions here or there? (I dare say your logic would put the blame of Saddam’s aggression on Iran, in the same way this Mr. Canning does). or can anyone justify Japanese aggression against Chines in WW II?

    It’s not about 1933 when they were weak. it’s about the end of 1930s when they were strong and used one excuses after another to grab territories, the Netherlands, Denmark, Africa…. It’s quite clear that if Nazis could get nuclear weapons earlier than Americans, they would have widely used it in Europe and probably elsewhere.
    Their deplorable belief of German race superiority does not need any explanation. Nor does killing disable people…

    As an Iranian, it’s true that if Nazis could win the war, Iran would have been in a better shape. but in an opposite direction, their stupidity and failure brought misery to Iran.

  44. nico says:

    Rehmat says:
    September 14, 2013 at 9:49 am

    “Abraham Foxman, top Israeli propagandist and head of Anti-Defamation League (ADL), in an Op-Ed, published by CNN on September 12, 2013, urged Obama administration to strike Iran in case the US wants to regain its credibility and leadership in the world.”

    Good point however one needs not to forget the full picture.

    Everybody know that the new world order shall be defined as per the ME and the Iran file outcomes.

    For 25 years, from the end of the cold war, the US led in their unilateral moment with folly and abysmal failure.

    Now there are only three options left.

    The first one being to keep the current inter-regnum situtation to roll over.
    With the western world in the brink of economic collapse through vodoo economics.
    A la Japan it could last yeard or decades (?) of economic agony but in the same time avoiding the eventual collapse and tough decisions.

    The second option is for US to climb down to climb to earth.

    www DOT zerohedge DOT com/news/2013-09-12/its-official-americas-suez-moment-has-arrived

    “Britain handed the reins of world dominance over to the United States. And America held this position for decades.

    But to anyone paying attention, this status has waned.Asia is rising. Major centers of wealth and power have grown around the world. US finances are desolate. And its currency is now widely reviled by foreign governments.But US politicians have completely ignored this trend over the last decade. They spend and act as if US global dominance is an endless river.

    With Syria, though, the US may have finally reached its Suez moment.”

    The third option is for the Anglo and poodles to throw the chessboard upside down.

    www DOT zerohedge DOT com/news/2013-09-12/war-now-inevitable

    “Trillions of dollars of debts will be restructured and millions of financially prudent savers will lose large percentages of their real purchasing power at exactly the wrong time in their lives. Again, the world will not end, but the social fabric of the profligate nations will be stretched and in some cases torn. Sadly, looking back through economic history, all too often war is the manifestation of simple economic entropy played to its logical conclusion. We believe that war is an inevitableconsequence of the current global economic situation.”

    “…despite a recent sense of detente in Syria, pay close attention: never since the cold war has the world been so close to the edge of a full-blown global military conflict. Whether or not the Syria “trigger” has been produced as the catalyst that will spark growth, or is merely a precursor to such an event is still unclear. However with every passing day, the US economy lags ever more behind its “trendline” and the common man gets left ever further behind the superclass of financial asset oligarchs, a state which the president opined recently was unacceptable. The question is whether millions of war casualties for the sake of yet another economic “golden age” aren’t.”

    Now the question is which path Obama will follow.
    Or put another way, which path other powers like Russia, China and Iran will push or lead the US to follow.
    Obviously we are in dangerous times.
    Diplomacy and statemanship are of prime importance.

    Putin and Xi and Rohani seems to be men capable to manage such situation safely.

    For Obama the question is still open…

    And the Iran nuclear file is central but incidental…

  45. Karl.. says:


    There is no “maybe” to this issue, the facts are clear.

  46. nico says:

    Persian Gulf says:
    September 14, 2013 at 12:05 pm

    The bad, bad, bad and ugly germans…
    Do you truly still believe in the mainstream propaganda ?

    Sure the great depression has nothing to do with WWII.
    And Anglo were angels with their systematic/scientific colonialism and genocides of natives around the world.
    Sure the Anglo were saints with their gunboat diplomacy “a la today Iran”.

    As I stated time and again the Anglo have a far worse track record than the Nazis.

    And regarding your hypotetical German niukes… pffff.
    That is a Canning sophistry that you offer this site !

    Actually Germany never possessed nukes.
    The US do.
    Germany never nuked anybody.
    The US did.

    And regarding the killing of jews. Do you happen to now this sordid story ?
    http://redactednews DOT blogspot DOT fr/2010/01/ringworm-children.html?m=1
    Hundred of thounsands jewish sepharadim were irradiated in Israel by ashkenazim in the 50′.
    Paid for US army experiment to Ashkenazim benefit
    Interesting isn’t it.

    Please open your eyes.
    You are truly brainwashed Canning and fyi like.
    A sorry and state IMHO.
    You still believe in Anglo moral high ground… LAUGHABLE.

  47. nico says:

    Karl.. says:
    September 14, 2013 at 1:04 pm
    “NicoThere is no “maybe” to this issue, the facts are clear.”

    So what ?
    Do you think it would be better for Syria to use CW against civilians in case if war ?
    Like the Anglo thugs in Iraq with their depleted uranium or the zionists in gaza with their white phosphorus.

    Syria CW were never intended to be used but to serve as deterence.
    The deterent effect bring void.
    It us better niw to scrap it and to keep the moral high ground.
    Leaving the Zionists and the Anglo with their criminal wezpons to be painted for that they are.
    The worst criminals on earth today.

  48. Karl.. says:


    CW use against civilians? What are you talking about? Yes it were their deterrence and now they dont have any that the issue along with the fact that threats work.

  49. Persian Gulf says:

    nico says:
    September 14, 2013 at 1:21 pm

    Calm down man. where did I say anything about allied been angels? or Jews for that matter? I am aware of the work by British propagandists that she is referring too. but non of these would make Nazis vindicated. By pointing at the dirty face of the Anglos you can’t take the blame from those hyper-racists Nazis.

    It’s not about Jews, it’s about that toxic ideology of Nazis as being superior to the rest of human being, in the same way we condemn the likes of Mr.Canning.

    As I said above, if you continue this way, you will be defending Saddam for his crimes.

  50. James Canning says:


    I assume you accept the fact Lavrov on June 18, 2013 encouraged Iran to stop enriching to 20, and that he was also speaking for China in that regard.

  51. James Canning says:


    Sergei Lavrov, the Russian FM, has made clear, I think, that Iran must stop enriching to 20 if a deal with P5+1 is to be achievable. You disagree?

  52. James Canning says:


    Abe Foxman, head of the Anti-defamation League (ADL), is an energetic proponent of endless war in the Middle East, at US taxpayer expense. To “protect” Israel.

  53. James Canning says:


    I do not think the P5+1 are asking Iran to pledge never to enrich to 20. Where do you get this idea?

  54. James Canning says:


    I think you are simply mistaken in your apparently belief China and Russia have differing views on Iran’s enriching to 20.

  55. nico says:

    U.S. Missiles Shot Down By Russia According to Al Manar TV Of Lebanon

    First there were no missiles fired, then there was a test fire and then the US supposedly shot down two missiles fired by Israelis according to some sources.Now we see Al Manar TV of Lebanon claiming that Russia shot down two U.S. missiles fired from a Spanish base.

  56. nico says:

    Persian Gulf says:
    September 14, 2013 at 1:55 pm


    The Anglo are wose than nazi germany ever was.

  57. Persian Gulf says:

    nico says:
    September 14, 2013 at 2:14 pm

    I am not refuting the fact that Anglo are as bad as Nazis. what I am saying is, don’t let the hatred of Anglo blind you for the crimes committed by Nazis. in less than 12 years in power, more than 60 million humans were killed with probably double than this number wounded or displaced. and a vast territory was destroyed just because they believed in the superiority of German race. surely American exceptionalism, and British-Japanese… imperialism, can be put in the same category.

  58. James Canning says:

    “The idea [for Syria to get rid of CW, to avoid US attack] had also been raised by European foreign ministers at a meeting with [Kerry] in Lithuania the previous day.”
    – – James Blitz, writing in the Weekend Financial Times today (“A long week: Putin’s diplomatic gambit”)

  59. James Canning says:

    The Guradian reports that Russia and the US have achieved a deal on getting rid of Syrian CW.

  60. kooshy says:

    James Canning says:
    September 13, 2013 at 7:08 pm


    “Azerbaijan report ( June 25: “On June 18, Laavrov said that Iran has confirmed it is “prepared” to halt its enrichment of 20-percent uranium.”

    James Canning says:
    September 14, 2013 at 1:56 pm


    “I assume you accept the fact Lavrov on June 18, 2013 “encouraged” Iran to stop enriching to 20, and that he was also “speaking for China” in that regard.”

    Gav James

    Couldn’t do better than that? Iran is prepared to do something which you Assume was encouraged by someone else a second party, then it gets twisted and transfers to also include speaking for the 3rd party, which is to be president of China who according to your honor was supposed to be speaking to Arab leaders directly. Can you also connect the Martians to this story too; it really makes it scarier.

    Gav, May I ask which boarding school you attended to, it seems you didn’t get enough; I wonder how many morning afters you had there.
    Gav, perhaps I assume based on English Boarding School mentality, no matter what you never get enough

    As per this Old Persian proverb

    “Broo In Dam Jeieh Degar Neh” = go an put this trap somewhere else, “or else”

  61. nico says:

    Persian Gulf says:
    September 14, 2013 at 2:25 pm

    “in less than 12 years in power, more than 60 million humans were killed with probably double than this number wounded or displaced. and a vast territory was destroyed just because they believed in the superiority of German race. ”

    I am not defending the nazis. They were no saints.
    But this is were you are abdolutely wrong.
    The 60 millions killed were due to imperialism.
    First and foremost Anglo imperalism which created the great depression as well as their humiliation of Germany for decades following the first WW unjust treaties.
    I do not even speak about the US victimization of Japan for decades as well.

    All what you heard about WWII responsibilities is serious BS that you are regurgitating.
    Germany and Japan were no better but no worse than the Anglo.

  62. Karl.. says:


    “I stand by my statement China opposes enrichment to 20, by Iran. You have evidence to contrary?”

    ““You think the civil war in Syria had nothing to do with Gulf Arab fears of war in the Gulf?””

    Do you have “evidence” for these claims or are you lying as usual?

  63. Fiorangela says:

    Persian Gulf says: September 14, 2013 at 12:05 pm

    This one response — I provided sources, quotations, and the line of reasoning I used to connect them (although the paragraphs got misplaced — 2.2″ is a very small area to write in).

    I hear what you are saying and I understand the relentlessness with which one version of the story has been told. I am not defending one side or the other. My argument is that there is more to the story than has been revealed, admitted to, and called to account for.

    I find your rejoinder weak — especially the fortune-telling/ad hominen in which you characterize how I think about Saddam.

    You speak first of the horror of Hitler seeking to expand territory, then you criticize Hitler’s “racial supremacy” theories. Regarding territorial expansion, Yes, that was the Nazi goal. As Norman Finkelstein has said a number of times, the Nazis sought to do so nonviolently. The annexation of Austria was not pleasant for many, but it was not accomplished by military means.

    As to racial theory — here’s the problem I run into: there is so much untruth written about Hitler and Nazism, and much of what does have a foundation in fact is deliberately buried, that, quite frankly, I am agnostic as to the true nature of Hitler and the NSDAP’s racial policy, if there was one. I agree that Hitler unified the German people around themes and myths of ancient German culture that was different from Semitic, or Abrahamic, cultural tales and myths (i.e. see the comments between nico and myself re Catholic/Roman/Greek and Judeo-Christian, evangelical Protestantism). Hitler was a passionate and highly informed student of the opera and sought to disseminate the stories of German culture that he knew from Opera, to the broad masses of German people. As I said, there is so much of propaganda about NSDAP that it’s hard to know what to believe — I haven’t done the research so I can’t say for sure, but I don’t know if the notion of the “blue-eyed blond Aryan” was something Hitler actually promulgated, or if it was the product of propagandists. Certainly Hitler associated Germans with Aryans (“the noble ones) and distinguished Aryans from Semites — the distinction is legitimate, at least linguistically and culturally. Just a side note — Malcolm Gladwell writes of Jewish women who were keenly interested in altering their appearance by, for example, dying their hair blonde, leading to the establishment of numerous cosmetics companies. German women, on the other hand, used to be unconcerned with makeup and hair color, and most usually appeared “au natural.” Summation — please provide solid evidence that Hitler promoted the strident racial policies that has been widely said to be the case.

    I think it’s important to get history right.

  64. Jay says:


    In case you inadvertently missed the opportunity to respond to my post on September 13, 2013 at 8:58 pm, I am providing you a second opportunity and a reminder to follow up.

  65. BiBiJon says:

    (b)ernard sums it up: it is over!

  66. fyi says:

    Persian Gulf says:
    September 13, 2013 at 11:03 pm

    I think without a failure mode analysis of the entire chain of events, no reliable conclusions are available.

    Again, Iranians are well advised to copy the United States’ National Transportation Safety Board and have the Iranian NTSB assume the responsibility for establishing safety rules, enforcing them, certifying vehicles, and levying fines.

    In this incident and others there could be other factors that contributed to this disaster: inadequate training of the driver, lack of sleep, using worn-out tires, road conditions, weak guard rails etc.

  67. kooshy says:

    This is funny I think pretty soon the leadership will change on daily bases,

    Syria’s Opposition Chooses New Leader
    By Andy Meek Sept. 14, 2013

    Read more:

    I need to see a spin by RSH

  68. BiBiJon says:

    Time Person of the Year … Putin

    On the heels of snatching peace from the jaws of war,

    Putin is going to Tehran to coordinate the end of the nuclear saga.



    Iran is suitably impressed with Russia putting its “carrier killer”, aka RSH’s landing craft, whee her mouth is. Putin likely will cash in on newly found credibility: convince SL to make painful, albeit temporary compromises, and threaten US, aka ‘which country should we bomb next’ with break up of P5+1, if a step-by-step approach is not agreed to, and implemented swiftly.

    Putin, will thus cement his image as the man who solved ME intractable problems. But, other than self glorification, he is also serving Russia’s interests. An appreciative Iran will be 6-lane highway for fast-tracking Russian commerce all over the ME, particularly Iraq and Afghanistan.

    As for Obama, he always did like leading from behind. We just didn’t know how far behind.

    ‘which country shall we bomb’,

  69. fyi says:

    nico says:
    September 14, 2013 at 6:08 am

    So, you are against Vatican II?


  70. fyi says:

    nico says:
    September 14, 2013 at 6:08 am

    Go to Indonesia as experience for yourself when you say “Al Salam Aleikom” to someone and he would say “hello” – since “Peace be Upon You” is reserved for Muslims only.

    Reminds me of this Iranian Jew who refused to teach Hebrew to Muslim student since “Hebrew is for Jewish People” – that was in Ettefagh School in Tehran.

    I am against bigotry, prejudice, discrimination, and denigration of other human beings.

    Know this Mr. Nico that God has a sense of Humor:

    One the one side, you have the ostensibly secular republic illegally (within her own legal structures) giving material aide and comfort to her own worst enemies – who are sworn to destroy her and had attacked her earlier – in order to help and sustain a religious fantasy far far from her own borders and culture.

    On the other side, you have the Shia Fortress – which caused thousands of Muslims to flee their own country to avoid the government’s futile and irreligious attempt at forcing them into a mold that corresponded to a brick-layer’s idea of proper Islamic Piety – now supporting to the hilt another government which is dominated by a Trinitarian non-Muslim sect.

    The fact remains, millions of women died at child-bed since time immemorial; it was these Western scientists and physicians that alleviated that agony and suffering; not the Muslims, not the Hindus, not the Buddhists and none other those Western Christians and Jews.

    Let us hope and see if these non-Western people can exceed, or even match, the record of the Western people.

    A cure for bi-polar disorder coming from Iran would be welcome by the entire world.

  71. Fiorangela says:

    the psychopath in your living room

    this program should have a parental advisory attached

  72. nico says:

    fyi says:
    September 14, 2013 at 5:24 pm

    “So, you are against Vatican II? Why?”

    First, my understanding of Vatican II is that it is the final official renunciation for catholic church to be involved in temporal matters.

    Second it is also the official renunciation to uphold catholic views against other religions.

    It is globally a renunciation to defend one own belief and core values.
    It is globally a self defeat and desertion of the fight of values in the spiritual and temporal arena.

    It is the catholicism final pacification and loss toward unsignificance.
    It is the catholicism civilizational acceptance of the defeat in face of materialism and atheism.

    Vatican II officialized the neutered catholicism which is the meaningless and pathetic thing we see today.

  73. Smith says:

    fyi says:
    September 14, 2013 at 5:02 pm

    Gol gofti vaqe’an.

    I just have to say, that there is also need for cultural engineering in Iran. As per WHO, Iran has one of the highest DALY rates for unintentional inflicted injuries aka accidents. Overall, Iranian society as a whole is not a safety conscious society. Most of professional drivers at wheel of buses and trucks are poorly trained/certified with lots of them being drug abusers (opium/hallucinogens etc etc).

    Also Iran lacks reactive insurance systems eg in most of developed countries even small traffic violations result not only in hefty fines/loss of driving license but also jack up the insurance by a huge amount. People specially the professional drivers get really scared of doing even a minor violation for fear of losing their insurance and thus their jobs.

    Most of traffic accidents in Iran are due to driver errors (mostly intentional errors eg over-speeding) with a minority of causes being technical for which there is no law to make the car makers responsible for their products (no accountability for corporations).

    And then there is now the culture of bribing prevalent in police. Most of the drivers just put money inside the speed/time book (the ones they have to show to traffic police stops) and exceed the speed limit all the time (they drive at 150 km in a 80 km zone). Then combine the fact that Iran does not have the capability to satisfy its market with quality tires and end up importing the cheapest alternative from China and drive buses with technical design flaws, while the driver is using shisheh/crack, then you get one of the highest traffic casualty rates in the world.

  74. kooshy says:

    ‘b’ is correct for rest of Mr. Obama’s term he will not be spending time on foreign policy, she shouldn’t he, he really never understood it and wasn’t good at it, and all he suffers from it is due to the continued froing policy mistakes, miss and mess that Hillary client and his WH security staff made. He deserve it.

  75. Photi says:

    BiBiJon says:
    September 14, 2013 at 4:44 pm

    great article, thanks for linking to it. it’s one thing to know about a certain strategy being played out in Syria, and quite another to see the strategy in all its damning detail. although i enjoyed the optimism of b’s predictions, unfortunately i do not expect the forces of war to stand down so easily. Peace in the region will begin to be codified when and if detente between the US and the IRI is achieved. Inshallah, the next nuclear talks will be successful.

  76. nico says:


    At the end of the day, religion is not only about banality, peace and infinite love.

    It is also about fighting for justice and one’s values against powerfull enemies.
    Be it secular or religious.

    “And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.”—Matthew 21:12–13

  77. Karl.. says:


    Peace is not what US wants should be obvious now with syria, but compared to syria I hope Iran wont give up its nuclear program due threats.

  78. Richard Steven Hack says:

    BiBiJon runs his mouth again… Let’s look at the list…


    Aleksandr Shabalin’ – Alexander Shabalin is a Project 775 Large Landing Ship (LLS)

    ‘Admiral Nevelskoy’ – is a Landing Ship Tank

    ‘Peresvet’ – Peresvet is a Project 775M Large Landing Ship (LLS).

    ‘Novocherkassk’ – Novocherkassk is a Project 775 Large Landing Ship (LLS)

    ‘Minsk’ – Minsk is a Project 775 Large Landing Ship (LLS)

    ‘Neustrashimy’ – Neustrashimy is a Project 11540 Yastreb ASW Frigate

    ‘Admiral Panteleyev’ – Admiral Panteleyev is a Project 1155 ASW Destroyer.

    ‘Priazovye’ – Intelligence Ship SSV-201

    ‘Moskva’ – is a Project 1164 Guided Missile Cruiser.

    What part of FIVE of NINE ships being LANDING CRAFT don’t you understand?

    Currently the US has TWO carrier strike groups in the area – Group Ten and Eleven. One is in the Med, one is in the Arabian Sea.

    Group Eleven comprises the following:

    USS Nimitz – Aircraft Carrier

    Surface Action Group consisting of:
    USS William P. Lawrence – Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer
    USS Stockdale – Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer
    USS Shoup – Arleigh Burke-class destroyer
    USS Higgins – Arleigh Burke-class destroyer

    NOTE: This may not be accurate. Reports are that the following ships are in the eastern Mediterranean:

    USS Mahan – Arleigh Burke-class destroyer
    USS Gravely – Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer
    USS Barry – Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer
    USS Ramage – Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer

    Regardless of WHICH destroyers are deployed currently, the number remains the same.

    Carrier Escorts:
    USS Princeton – Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruiser
    USS Preble – Arleigh Burke-class destroyer
    USS Momsen – Arleigh Burke-class destroyer
    EODMU-11 (Explosive Ordinance Disposal)

    Carrier Air Wing 11 which comprises:

    Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 323 – 10 F/A-18C(N)
    Strike Fighter Squadron 154: – 12 F/A-18F
    Strike Fighter Squadron 147 – 2 F/A-18E
    Strike Fighter Squadron 146 – 10 F/A-18C
    Electronic Attack Squadron 142 – 10 EA-6B
    Carrier Airborne Early Warning Squadron 117 – 4 E-2C
    Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron 6 – 7 MH-60S
    Helicopter Maritime Strike Squadron 75 – 11 MH-60R
    Fleet Logistics Support Squadron 30, Detach 3 – C-2A

    Let’s look at Carrier Strike Group Ten:

    USS Harry S. Truman – Aircraft Carrier


    USS Gettysburg – Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser
    USS San Jacinto – Ticonderoga-class cruiser
    USS Mason – Arleigh Burke-class destroyer
    USS Bulkeley – Arleigh Burke-class destroyer
    USNS Arctic – Supply class of fast combat support ship

    Carrier Air Wing Three:
    Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 312 (VMFA-312) – 10 FA-18C
    Strike Fighter Squadron 105 (VFA-105) – 12 F/A-18E
    Strike Fighter Squadron 37 (VFA-37) – 11 FA-18C
    Strike Fighter Squadron 32 (VFA-32) – 12 FA-18F
    Tactical Electronics Warfare Squadron 130 (VAQ-130) – 4 EA-6B
    Carrier Airborne Early Warning Squadron 126 (VAW-126) – 3 E-2C
    Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron 7 (HSC-7) – 8 MH-60S
    Helicopter Maritime Strike Squadron 74 (HSM-74) – 7 MH-60R
    Fleet Logistics Support Squadron 40 (VRC-40), Det. 4 – 2 C-2A

    By my count, that’s:

    Aircraft Carriers – 2
    Destroyers – 8
    Cruisers – 3
    Fighter Aircraft – 88

    And who knows how many submarines?

    Against this, you pose the utterly massive threat of:

    Landing Craft – 5
    Cruiser – 1
    Frigate – 1
    Destroyer – 1

    Brilliant work, BiBiJon…I salute your knowledge of military affairs…The United States Navy is undoubtedly quivering in their boots and will no doubt turn tail and flee the Med under the threat of the massive Russian navy presence which will guarantee no possible attack on Syria…

    Finally, reports are that Russia is closing down its naval facility at Tartus and evacuating the approximately 100 technicians there. From the Reuters report:


    Citing an unnamed source in the Russian navy headquarters, Interfax reported that the facility’s personnel had boarded the repair vessel stationed there and that Russian warships would escort it out.

    The report did not say when the vessel would leave Tartous or how many people were aboard. The Defence Ministry declined to comment, saying questions should be addressed to the navy. Navy officials could not immediately be reached for comment.

    Following Russian media reports in June that military personnel had been withdrawn from the facility, the Defence Ministry said nobody had left. It said personnel there were civilians.

    The ministry gave no figures, but military analysts have said the facility is staffed by about 100 technicians who service Russian ships that call for supplies and minor repairs.

    Russian officials say there are tens of thousands of Russian citizens in Syria, many of them women married to Syrians and their children.

    Russia’s Emergency Situations Ministry said late on Tuesday it had evacuated 89 people who wanted to leave Syria, including 75 Russian citizens, on a flight from Latakia to Moscow. It said the ministry has flown 730 people out of Syria this year.

    End Quote

  79. Richard Steven Hack says:

    U.S., Russia agree to deal on Syria chemical weapons


    Kerry and Lavrov said that if Syria does not comply with the agreement, which must be finalized by the Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons, it would face consequences under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, the part that covers sanctions and military action.

    Kerry said there was no agreement on what those measures would be. U.S. President Barack Obama, he said, reserves the right to use military force in Syria.

    “There’s no diminution of options,” he said.

    Lavrov said of the agreement, “There (is) nothing said about the use of force and not about any automatic sanctions.”

    End Quote

    Sounds to me like no one really knows what the agreement actually is…


    Kerry said that, under the pact, Syria must submit a “comprehensive listing” of its chemical weapons stockpiles within one week.

    Kerry, at a press conference with Lavrov, said that under the agreement, U.N. weapons inspectors must be on the ground in Syria no later than November. The goal, he said, is the complete destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons by the middle of 2014.

    End Quote

    And that sounds like an utterly unrealistic schedule…

  80. Photi says:

    Karl, i don’t think Iran will have to give up its nuclear program. Or rather, Iran will not agree to a deal to dismantle its program, so if a deal is made, Iran’s program will at least tacitly be “recognized” by the powers currently sanctioning Iran.

    The question is whether or not Obama can agree to a deal with Iran in the face of strong Israeli and domestic opposition. Does he have the sway to weather the political storm? He needs people in his Administration who can help him make the case a deal with Iran is in America’s best interest, if he did so, the American people will welcome the agreement gladly as it will prevent American involvement in yet another Middle East war.

    If Obama faced so much opposition to a Syrian war, imagine the outcry if he were to try to gin up support of an Iran war. Obama’s Syria defeat has for all intents and purposes taken military action off the table with Iran. OBAMA needs the deal, not Iran. A deal for Obama will slow down America;s strategic decline in the region.

  81. Richard Steven Hack says:

    From a CNN report…

    Gen. Salim Idriss, the head of the opposition Free Syrian Army, on Saturday repeated a claim that the Syrian government is moving its chemical weapons out of the country to Lebanon and Iraq.

    If Syria does not comply with the procedures to eliminate its chemical weapons, the threat of force will be included in a U.N. Security Council resolution, Kerry said. “We’ve committed to impose measures under Chapter 7 of the United Nations Security Council,” he said.

  82. Smith says:

    fyi says:
    September 14, 2013 at 5:39 pm

    “Let us hope and see if these non-Western people can exceed, or even match, the record of the Western people.

    A cure for bi-polar disorder coming from Iran would be welcome by the entire world.”

    They cant. Rest assured. The cultural underpinning of non-western societies is so that though they might reach a point of sophistication but that will always be behind the western civilization. This is the bitter truth. Chinese will never be able to match Germans in engineering. Not until they redefine what is China and Chinese. The non-western nations whether Islamic or not do not have the openness and desire for change towards betterment.

    A recent example of how the new government in Iran is indicating its desire to solve the chronic problem of brain drain in Iran (Ahmadinejad must be fuming): By lowering the production of brains, literally:

    It is amazing. Till the 1980’s the biggest brain producer in the world, the famed MIT was funded 100% by Pentagon. Today with financial problems it has been reduced but I guess still the US government specially the defense sector provides the major portion of its funding. It is not only MIT, but the entire science and technology sector of US has its foundations in huge state funding of gigantic proportions.

    Since you raised the field of obstetrics, lets take the example of ultrasonography which has become an indispensable tool in this field and many others saving pain and lives. The technology was developed by US navy. Almost everything around us, including those used by baseejis have their origins in Pentagon and/or western brains/labs.

    There is this story told to me by an obstetrician that when the Indian king’s wife died during child birth, he built a rather useless but architecturally monumental building for his love which is known today as Taj Mahal. Around the same time in Europe a king’s wife also dies in child birth. He instructed an institution be built for proper training of midwives which then became the foundation of modern science of obstetrics. The difference in approach/thinking could not be more evident and clear.

  83. James Canning says:


    Iran in my view can retain its domestic nuclear power programme provided it does not appear to be trying to be able to build nukes quickly. Ambiguity is dangerous for Iran.

  84. James Canning says:


    Thanks for pointing out I had overlooked your question. You say “appease the Americans” as meaning, apparently, the P5+1 must make a deal that the Americans can support? Which I should think means any deal would have to be something Obama could live with in terms of domestic American politics.

    I think Britain might well suggest Obama should openly accept Iranian enrichment to 5, under certain conditions. There would be an uproar from Israel lobby, no doubt.

  85. Kooshy says:

    Photi says:
    September 14, 2013 at 6:39 pm
    Photi Jaan

    In any rosy scenario that I can think of, after years of overtly supporting Israeli, in democratic regimes of SKA, Egypt numerous copes, assassinations , supporting Extremists, etc. I don’t see America has any chance in hell of any strategically return to ME. I think like in Europe any strategic alliance in new world with the new younger ME will need a street approval to be meaningful and effective. In any other way it will not be balanced and lasting. America no longer can make that connection.

  86. James Canning says:

    “[B]ecause Chinese officials prefer that other countries, especially the US, bear the economic and diplomatic costs of constraining Iran, Beijing limits its direct pressure on Iran.”
    — Richard Weitz, World Politics Review, Aug 13, 2013.

    A fair statement.

  87. Jay says:

    James Canning says:
    September 14, 2013 at 6:53 pm

    Thank you James for responding the first part of my post. About the second part, and why should principles be sacrificed at the altar of appeasement…What say you?

    Here is a cut and paste from the original question so you would not have to look for it.
    I think you agree that the appeasement policy of Neville Chamberlain with respect to international relations with Germany was not a success!

    I am now asking for a statement of principle from you, and a speculation regarding the worth of any agreement under the proposed regime of “deal that appeases the Americans” or anybody else for that matter.

  88. Photi says:

    Kooshy says:
    September 14, 2013 at 7:03 pm

    Kooshy, i should think an ordered retreat of the American military presence in the region prior to any more wars is preferable over a hastily contrived, “damn we got our asses kicked in Iran”, evacuation of the same.

    I guess i would argue in favor of America maintaining the civil and diplomatic relationships to the region, as these relationships, when they are allowed to flourish, do more than anything else to achieve and maintain the peace. In the absence of official (ie governmental) relationships, “street diplomacy” and/or Track II diplomacy is essential. “The Sanctions” end the human relationships and make war more likely.

  89. fyi says:

    nico says:
    September 14, 2013 at 6:13 pm

    No you are wrong.

    At the end of the day, its is about confronting Death and Madness.

  90. Fiorangela says:

    On Yom Kippur 2012 a conversation among a Jesuit priest, a rabbi, and an Imam on Confession —

    The rabbi and the priest agreed that the practice of confession by Jews and by Catholics is closely related. One major difference is that Jews set aside a ‘holy week’ — I would compare it to Catholic Lent — for a ritual practice of examining one’s life, making amends, and resolving to make improvements. (nb. ritual is extremely important in human society.)

    The Catholic practice is not a group ritual but an individual practice of one of the sacraments of the Church. It involves the same process, however: an examination of conscience; confession of wrongdoing; asking for forgiveness, repenting — i.e. doing penance, but more importantly, attempting to right the wrongs one has done. The penitent is then granted absolution by the priest acting in the name of God.

    The Imam said that Muslim confession is a series of steps, very similar to the Jewish and Catholic ritual/sacrament. I am not sure if there is a liturgy for confession in Islam. The Imam added one very important element: the penitent must forgive himself; he must accept God’s loving forgiveness.

    Several people called into the program to talk about the 12-Step program of Alcoholics Anonymous. The AA program is similar to the practice of confession — it was devised under the guidance of a Catholic priest.

    Finally, and of interest — a pastor from a Christian church called to speak about a personal experience she had in which a long-simmering grievance between herself and another person was finally settled after they agreed to meet and discuss it. She spoke about how difficult the conversation was, how hard to forgive, and the feelings surrounding the experience.

    The implication of the Christian pastor’s experience is that there does not seem to be a ritual in Protestantism in which one may ask forgiveness; there is no ‘annual audit,’ apparently.

  91. kooshy says:

    Photi says:
    September 14, 2013 at 7:28 pm

    Photi Jaan

    That’s great but that’s not an strategic relation, I am strictly talking any future strategic relation for US, that is dead, the relations she currently has with KSA, Israel, Egypt, etc. is more of a drag and burden on US’s long term goals and desires. Can US make any strategic relation with any one government that is accepted and legitimate the answer is No- would US make a strategic relation with any ME government that wouldn’t take foreign policy dictates from US, Not yet- Would US change her ME posture and policy to accept independent countries with legitimate national interest, Not soon.

  92. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Apparently the US has backed off the UN Resolution…

    U.S. not expecting U.N. resolution on Syria to include use of force

    Presumably they figured out another UNSC Resolution which Russia and China vetoes would be a waste of time…

  93. Richard Steven Hack says:

    But of course…

    No, the U.S. isn’t ruling out using force against Syria–the-u-s–isn%E2%80%99t-ruling-out-using-force-against-syria-212746976.html

  94. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Syrian rebel groups sought sarin gas material, Turkish prosecutors say,0,7319402,print.story

  95. Persian Gulf says:


    As you say they are so many accounts on this that it would be impossible to distiguish right from wrong. Looking at the event and the fact that Nazis attacked so many countries, it suffices to call them mad. What I have seen is young and old Germans don’t like to be associated with Aryan race, perhaps for a good reason. If you call them all brainwashed, so be it.

    Incidentally I talked for few days to a German guy in his late fifties this week. A very proud and highly educated German, if you fact proud of his pure German accent from central Germany. He talked about his ill father, that how tough life was when his father was young and this idiot Hitler was thirsty for land and power. He was basically saying unification with the east wasn’t popular and you are saying grabbing Austria was a legitimate action. He was quite aware of Iran-Iraq war and the US support. I can’t call someone like him got the history of his country wrong.

  96. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Who works for who again?

    Kerry heading to Israel to update Netanyahu on Syria deal

  97. Persian Gulf says:


    It’s interesting to see this time you did not just blame the driver. I believe Iran’s very high death rate due to accident has more to do with safety of the vehicles and the roads as well as the lack of law inforcement. The penalty for violation is not just enough, and it’s easy to get away with this minor penalty. Lack of education in that sense included. Basicallymostly government responsibility.

  98. PB says:

    This was great composure by Hillary.

    She delivered a message that needs to be heard and hopefully it will lead to change in our foreign policy.

  99. Fiorangela says:

    Persian Gulf says: September 14, 2013 at 9:52 pm

    Persian Gulf, I appreciate your comment.

    It is my impression (especially from my spouse’s German family) that Germans are a proud and disciplined people — like Iranians.

    Very very few people hear of the starvation of Germans in WWI — Germans are too proud to complain. Similarly, very very very few people know of the famine that killed so many Iranians in WWI — perhaps 40% of the population died, according to Mohammad Gholi Majd. Iranians suffered famine again in WWII when, once again, British and American occupiers sequestered foodstuffs and the Iranians got the short end of the stick. But to complain would be undignified, so they don’t.

    Once again, my purpose is not to valorize Hitler or the Nazi — I’m really not trying to take sides. I do believe that it’s appropriate and necessary to set the record straight: Only God is an uncaused cause, and there were causal factors behind Hitler’s and the Nazis’ actions. They may have been criminal purposes, or violations of law, but there were causes.

    But the dogmatized narrative does not present those causes: I challenge you to find three books on World War I that have anything more than two lines on the starvation that killed 800,000 German civilians. I further challenge you to find extensive coverage of the massive firebombing campaign that Churchill initiated (on May 11, 1940). One final challenge — go to a mall in the USA and find ten people who are aware of the Allied firebombing campaign against Germany. We killed 600,000 German civilians by firebombing; the strategy was deliberate; the intention was deliberate — to kill civilians in order to break the morale of the home front and to disrupt the ability to sustain the industry needed to wage war.

    I think these things need to be broadly known: the US and Britain got away with mass murder — crimes against humanity. Obama said he needed to punish Assad to make it clear that he shouldn’t use CW again, because if he thought he could get away with it, he would do it again. Well, the US and Britain got away with war crimes against the German people, and they have been on a self-righteous rampage ever since, killing millions of people in Viet Nam, South America, Iraq, Afghanistan, … They need to be called to account, and rubbing their noses in their own dirty deeds and, ideally, requiring that they pay reparations is right in line with what the Rabbi, the priest and the Imam discussed at Yom Kippur.

    All of those factors provide a lot more detail — and explanation of why people did what they did — than merely saying, “Hitler was evil.”

    I don’t know about the campaigns into other nations, i.e. Denmark etc. I imagine there was a strategic reason — wrt to France and Denmark, the purpose was not to take territory.

    + + +

    I’ve been collecting explanations for why it is not necessary to hold the US “morally accountable” for its actions when Saddam used chemical weapons against Iran. “It was a mistake; we’ve learned.” “You have to understand — we were in a Cold War …” “That’s what empires do — they protect their friends and they don’t protect their perceived enemies.” “We didn’t make any ethical determination at all. We just sold and sold and sold weapons and let them kill each other.”

    How is it that Hitler is “mad” for using military force to retake territory (in Poland) that had been carved out of that nation in what most of the world recognized as a grossly unfair treaty that Germany was forced to acquiesce (the starvation blockade of Germany remained in force until Germany signed), but the US and Britain are not “mad” for obliterating 75% of Germany’s infrastructure? The German people, like your friend, has paid its debt; Finkelstein has said that Germany is the most morally conscious nation in the world. But the US has NOT been held to account, and so it behaves badly. To my way of thinking, one way of calling the US and Britain to account is by making known their war crimes — against Germany and Iran — and requiring that they make restitution in some way. McNamara said, the laws of morality don’t change just because you won.

  100. BiBiJon says:

    Richard Steven Hack says:
    September 14, 2013 at 6:31 pm

    Thanks a lot genius.

    No disrespect to your brains which clearly is enormous, but I’d rather go with the analysis below

  101. Richard Steven Hack says:

    BiBiJon: From the article YOU cite…

    “As for the rest of the naval task force, it is here to protect these heavy amphibious assault ships for overzealous US and NATO curiosity and maybe even hostile actions, while at the same time taking the airspace of the eastern Mediterranean and Syria under full control.”

    Note – those few actual combat ships are to “protect those heavy amphibious assault ships” – from “US and NATO curiosity”. And “maybe even hostile actions” – like what?

    All this bullshit speculation that the Russians are somehow able to project a significant amount of power into the region is just that – bullshit speculation. What are they going to do with it considering that any direct military confrontation risks immediate escalation to WWIII – which the US – with its numerous nuclear missile subs FAR outweigh Russia – will win.

    IF Russia was willing to go that far, which Putin is not – not being stupid enough to think Syria is worth losing most of Russia for.

    That last clause is amusing since Russia has no “airspace control” capability on those ships except for a small number of surface-to-air missiles on some of their boats. Whereas as I cited above, the US Carrier Strike Group Eleven ALONE has some 32 strike aircraft, not to mention almost all the destroyers are GUIDED MISSILE DESTROYERS.

    And the list of ships he has is not significantly different from the list already provided. The only significant difference is the second missile cruiser and that is “unconfirmed”.

    From someone’s comment to that article:

    “How would you rate these ships vs the US Navy in a hypothetical fight in the eastern Mediterranean?

    Most of the Russian naval task force ships are far older than the USN ships. Also, the Mediterranean is Yankee-land where the USN can get support everywhere. Naval warfare is HUGELY dependent on air support. Right now the Russians have *zero*.”

    Bottom line: The Russian Navy is not a factor in this conflict. If Obama decides to attack Syria, Russia will do NOTHING militarily to defend Syria.

    ‘Nuff said. Not wasting any more time on someone without clue one about relative military strength.

  102. Richard Steven Hack says:

    10 reasons why diplomatic solution is unlikely in Syria

  103. Richard Steven Hack says:

    US’s evidence on Syria, fabricated: Retired CIA analyst

  104. M. Ali says:

    “Maysara, a commander of a battalion in Saraqeb, said in an interview that he had paid little attention to the diplomacy on Saturday.

    “I don’t care about deals anymore,” he said in an interview. “The Americans found a way out of the strike.”

    He added: “The Russians did what they want. The Americans lied, and believed their own lie — the U.S. doesn’t want democracy in Syria. Now I have doubts about the U.S. capacities, their military and intelligence capacities. The Iranian capacity is much stronger, I guess.”

  105. M. Ali says:

    In regards to discussion on traffic,

    I guess it needs time. UAE has a higher accident rate than Iran, even though UAE has better roads, better cars, better tires, much higher fines, stricter law, more campaign on road safeties, and even more expats from countries that have its populations drive better to help with the average. Plus, UAE has safer roads, because between cities, is just a simple straight road, while in Iran, roads sometimes take you around mountains. That is, by necessity, having a country like Iran, by itself, increases chance of accidents.

    I suppose, the biggest reason is probably a middle eastern trait. For the middle eastern man, safety is an illusion, everything is the hands of Allah. What God Wills.

    When I travel to my hometown in the south of Iran, there is a cultural aspect of driving that I find prevelant for as long as I remember. When you drive between cities, sometimes you find the police lying in wait to fine you for overspeeding or illegal overtakings. So what the drivers to is that whenever they pass a police car, for the next few minutes, they flash the cars coming their way, warning them that a police is coming in front of them, so they should drive slower. I remember thinking this was a great way of southern Iranians looking out for each other ,until my visit in Noyruz, when I suddenly realized what idiots we were. Why ARE we warning others? If they are driving too fast, LET THEM BE FINED! By using this system of brotherhood, we had been helping each other drive unsafetly for years, if not decades.

  106. M. Ali says:

    The world average for car accidents is 20.8 per 100,000. The only country in the middle east better than that average is Bahrain apparently.

  107. Karl.. says:

    September 14, 2013 at 6:39 pm

    1. Iran is not Syria (it will be easier to get a war against Iran for obama)
    2. Obama hasnt said he will stop warmongering against Syria so the war could still come to Syria.

  108. Empty says:

    M. Ali,

    When looking at mortality rates in Iran, 14% is attributed to injuries and traffic accidents. Mortality for cancers is 12%. After CVD deaths, traffic accidents are number two cause of death. This is just from mortality data (and not morbidity data in which case people stay alive and must live through the consequences).

    Of course, in the US also, death due to traffic accidents has maintained top 6 status for many states. Speed, alcohol, and DWD (driving while distracted – cell phones, text messaging, putting on make-up, etc.) have been blamed for them. In the US, too, many times I noticed the same “headlight blinking” to warn of the police presence.

  109. Empty says:


    Thank you for the link to the Al-Menaar article regarding the two “test” US missiles. It explains a lot.

  110. Empty says:


    RE: “It is my impression (especially from my spouse’s German family) that Germans are a proud and disciplined people — like Iranians.”

    Like Iranians??!! I don’t know about being proud (probably is true) but I could assure you that Iranians, as a whole, if they demonstrate any discipline in a particular situation, it’s purely by accident! (However, I must also add that there are select few people in critical fields and positions that are extremely disciplined. And many thanks to them, Iran has made notable advances in several areas. If the discipline these people show could be extended to about 15 to 20 percent of the population, IRI could become an exemplary society.)

  111. Sineva says:

    Photi says:
    September 14, 2013 at 6:39 pm
    I agree,but sadly the americans having painted themselves into this corner seem to have no idea or inclination of how to get out of it apart from the hope of an iranian surrender

  112. Sineva says:

    James Canning says:
    September 14, 2013 at 6:46 pm
    It is not “ambiguity” as you put it,that is the wests problem here it is irans mastery of the fuel cycle and development of an indigenous nuclear industry.There has been no sign,indeed quite the opposite,that the west is willing to accept these things.Even if the west was prepared to back down and accept enrichment at 5% that would still not end the problem,as we saw with fordow the west would want limits on the numbers and types of facilities and no doubt the numbers and types of centrifuges within them

  113. M. Ali says:

    Offtopic, but do you guys follow Iranian cinema? Last 2-3 years, I’ve noticed a new revival in Iranian cinema, with lots of boundaries being pushed. Last year, I saw the excellent “I am a Mother [Man Madar Hastam]” which was about underage rape, a subject that is never really discussed in Iranian cinema. Two days back, I saw “Hush: Girls Don’t Scream” in the cinema, and it was about child molestation and pedophelia! Boundaries are really being pushed here.

  114. nico says:

    Empty says:
    September 15, 2013 at 3:40 am

    “nico,Thank you for the link to the Al-Menaar article regarding the two “test” US missiles. It explains a lot.”

    Not sure if it is truth. But at least it seems congruent.

    I saw the picture of Rohani and Putin meeting during the SCO.
    I confess that I was disturbed by their body language.

    Putin is bossy and confident.
    Rohani calm is and likely whispering sugar coated words.

    Sure the Al Manar article would be an explanation of such posture.

  115. nico says:

    fyi says:
    September 14, 2013 at 7:50 pm

    “No you are wrong.At the end of the day, its is about confronting Death and Madness.”

    That is sloppily said.

    I would rather term it as the aim for Man to find a meaning out of Man self-consciousness and consciousness of his surrounding.

    Fear of death being one aspect of Man self-consciousness.
    And madness the result of Man meaningless position in universe without faith or some kind of transcendent idelogy.

  116. BiBiJon says:

    Richard Steven Hack says:
    September 15, 2013 at 1:03 am

    Genius, glad to see you’re optimistic about the outcome of WW-III. I would take bets, except I don’t think there will be a planet left for that bet to mean anything.

    Do I detect a slight easing up on the earlier genius analysis that Russian/Chinese amphibious assault ships capable of landing 2 combat divisions into the fray, combined with other significant AA and AS assets, are solely for evacuation and countering Turkey?

  117. kooshy says:

    To start nice enjoyable Sunday morning

  118. Bussed-in Basiji says:

    M Ali-jan, Empty-jan, (maybe of interest to Pirouz as well),

    According to internal insurance statistics that I saw while doing a project, over 70% of road accidents in Iran are caused by male drivers 18-26 of age.

    As in all countries and nations and tribes, young males don’t understand the concept of “death”. That’s why most rental car companies in US don’t rent cars to males below 25 and insurance rates for male drivers in that age group are the highest. In fact that is why they are drafted into armies and sent to fight wars at this age.

    The easiest and fastest solution is to not give driving licenses to young men below age 25-26. (Let them take the bus, right? Pun intended)

    But like the hijab issue, which MP/official has the balls to suggest these things when they have to get elected by these youth next elections? Long live Islamic democracy!

    The insurance people, police and doctors I spoke to are in favor of raising the driving age for males to 25…but like I said, no balls necessary to implement “rational” solutions.

    In other words, the problems are not as tweedle dee and tweedle dum say related to the “eastern soul” etc…the problem as always remains lack of bayzatayn on the part officials and those responsible for the lives of other human beings- proper legislation and proper enforcement.

    And yes, I completely agree that one of the biggest scourges in Iran is police corruption.

    When basij is allowed to conduct police activities- as is currently the case in many rural areas but not so in cities, police corruption goes down. Not only does it go down, but corrupt police are actually arrested by basij instead of being protected by their colleagues. Not allowing basij to do police activities- one of the legacies of Jenabe Qalibaf was police commander.

    Unfortunately because of bullshit talk as exemplified by tweedle dee on this forum about “harrasment” we don’t have parallel police forces in Iran- which is the best way to fight police corruption. Police corruption can never be eradicated completely but it can be reduced significantly when a few separate forces are “competing” with each other.

    The solution to police corruption in Iran is allowing basij police force in the cities- to keep an eye the “brothers from niroo entezami”. And yes if you wanna add two or three other police forces to keep an eye on basij-police- yes bismillah. In fact the judiciary has its own police force, but it is not used properly in my view.

    In other words, Iran in fact has proportionally too little police for the (young) population that it has and doesn’t pay its police officers enough for the extremely difficult job they have to do. All ingredients that lead to corruption.

  119. Persian Gulf says:

    Fiorangela says:
    September 15, 2013 at 12:20 am

    I know what you mean by demonization campaign. But please be advised that most of my limited info. about WW II is from the time I was in Iran. I remember in those books, they specifically mentioned about Germany’s humiliation in WW I and the unjust treaty on Germany that resulted in losing a significant portion of the country. There was also no emphasis about Jews.

    Nazis attacked many countries. Denmark was just an example. You may talk about Dresden. Equally speaking Nazis inflicted pain on other people. The beautiful port of Rotterdam was completely destroyed by Nazis. With all his flaws, I wish he could destroy that little fu***** island after taking France and did not go toward Soviets. He would have served humanity a great service by doing this job :)

    If I recall correctly, the Bolsheviks withdrawed from WW I after the 1917 revolution. I am not sure why Nazis attacked Soviets Union at all.

    and there is no doubt the U.S and Britain committed way more crimes than Nazis over the past century or so.

  120. Persian Gulf says:

    M. Ali

    That headlight warning is common here too. there is nothing specific about being Middle Eastern. I find your characterization offensive sometimes. people everywhere would react the same way providing that the condition is the same. reckless driving in Iran is mostly about lack of education, ease of penalty for violating driving laws, and lack of insurance policy that punishes a violation dearly. the fines are often ridiculous. and even with that little amount, you can get away with it easily. never have seen a driving license being suspended or merit points making it a problem to get insurance. apply heavy fine system and surprise reckless drivers with huge fine; they would do the job of scaring other reckless drivers from ever taking risky step themselves.

    more than a decade ago fastening seat belt in Iran was a joke. People would have ridiculed you if you did that. But it’s now very common. why? because of the so much emphasis on this particular issue in the media. TV specially.
    you won’t also see that much presence of police in rural areas. and reckless driving is not punished.

    the reason safety is not taken serious is about the lack of awareness. I remember few years ago when I came here, a technician in a lab told me you seem not to care much about safety. he was right because in Iranian society, unlike here, there is not much education for safety. almost no safety training… and no enforcement of the safety law. for as much as I believe safety is often overkilled here, it’s totally neglected by the official apparatus in Iran.

    A very important point is the attention of media. If in an accident 20 people are killed for example, it would be a national catastrophe. They would talk for weeks about it in the media here and discuss the root cause of it. Whereas in Iran, the emphasis is on sending condolences, talking about how nice these people where, and wishing them rest in peace and Roheshan Shad thing! (I am sure they are resting in peace, more than all of us here :) ) basically victimization of the killed ones (morde parasti system), and almost no emphasize on that the killed one was a reckless driver… you saw just in a single accident 44 people died and many wounded, and as if nothing happened. it will be business as usual.

  121. Rehmat says:

    Israeli-born writer, author and musician, Gilad Atzmon, on September 14, 2013, once again urged Tehran to acquire a nuclear deterrent. He said that’s the only way to bring Israeli aggression to an end. This is not the first time, Atzmon has made such suggestion. He did on several occasions during the last ten years I happen to know him.

  122. Karl.. says:

    As I just said, the approach on Syria is the approach for Iran according to Obama and Kerry, thus again – threats work!

  123. Smith says:

    Obama in an interview with ABC yesterday says that Iran should not think that if US has not yet attacked it, that it will not do so in future, basically threatening Iran with annihilation and destruction. He goes on then to say that Iran should not think now that US has not attacked Syria, that it will not rape Iran, since the nuclear matter is much more important than Syria’s chemical weapons to US and Israel. He also hinted that there have been some message exchanges between Rouhani and him and that he believes that since most severe sanctions have been imposed on Iran, then Iranians are ready to capitulate and be raped by US. He was very hopeful of the rape of Iran. Let’s see what happens.

  124. Smith says:

    Here is the link, the house nigger threatening Iran with rape:

  125. Bussed-in Basiji says:


    Just a little pointer, your unnecessary and excessive use of the word “rape” contributes to your emotional instability…just a little pointer.

    What Barry White actually said is that the Syria chemical weapons deal should be a “diplomatic” lesson for Iran to solve its nuclear file.

    In other words: US will attack unless you agree with Putin to destroy your “nuclear weapons” program…Sen Graham added that Congress would approve airstrikes on Iran if asked by the President…basically repeating the threat, nothing new.

    OK now take a deep breath…inhale…hold,hold,hold….exhale (repeat 3 times)…

    Let’s see what the Motley Crue on this forum thinks will happen:

    A. Iran will cave-in.
    B. Barry White will have to eat shit again.
    C. Both A and B
    D. Neither A nor B

  126. Karl.. says:


    Iran’s support for the syrian CW agreement is obviously a great blunder. Not surprising though…

  127. Fiorangela says:

    Persian Gulf,

    re “With all his flaws, I wish he could destroy that little fu***** island”

    so this will produce some kind of emotional response —

    On NBC Meet the Press this morning,
    (I think it was Tom Friedman quoted by or responding to the moderator)

    “The American people have spoken, but it’s hard to keep facing down Middle East Hitlers when there are no Churchills on the other side.”

  128. Smith says:

    Karl.. says:
    September 15, 2013 at 12:28 pm

    Chemical weapons are useless. They impart no deterrence on the holders of them as is now clear so Iran’s decision is not really consequential. The only weapons that give guaranteed deterrence against the WASPs’ are nuclear weapons.

  129. Karl.. says:


    You just refered yourself to Obama threatening Iran.. of course it was a bad agreement for Syria and for Iran to support.

  130. Smith says:

    Karl.. says:
    September 15, 2013 at 12:38 pm

    Yes, I did refer to that. But the agreement was between US and Russia. Syria had no other choice since it depends on Russia to block UN resolutions (as does Iran). Iran had taken a principled stance against chemical weapons some 30 years ago and it will be very difficult for it to back track on it. As I said, chemical weapons do not have any deterrence value so this agreement is inconsequential. What this agreement shows is that you can not trust anyone to be your friend. Not Russia not China not no one.

    You can only trust the nuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence. Basically what you are watching is the replay of the “great game”/”realpolitik” whatever you wanna call. Big nations deciding the fate of small ones. The only way to be immune from this game is not to endorse or not endorse an agreement between big players but by becoming a player yourself with acquisition of nuclear weapons. WASPS wet their pants when confronted with nuclear weapons. This is the only way to play level with them.

    As for Syria, Iran is doing all it can to help Syria defeat the menace of western created and supported wahabi terror (within technical capability of Iran). Watch this:

  131. Bussed-in Basiji says:


    Syrian officials said they only agreed to the deal after “new security orientations” with Russia and Iran vis-a-vis Israel.

    In other words, Russia and Iran will guarantee Syrian security against Israel.

    In such circumstances very sensible of Syria to “destroy” its chemical weapons- whatever “destroy” means.

  132. Karl.. says:


    1. There was no sign that Russia wouldnt use a veto
    2. Being against CW doesnt mean you must accept any deal put forward, this was what Iran and Syria did.
    3. CW DO play a role, Syria will never get nukes and no they have no CW’s left. No they are as naked Saddam or Khadaffi were, they also got fooled and we all know what happend next to them..

  133. Smith says:

    Karl.. says:
    September 15, 2013 at 12:56 pm

    I hear what you say and fully understand it. I am not saying it is fair or defending it. I am just putting things in context.

    1- Russia had indicated that it will use veto. So did China. That is why the UK proposal sent to UNSC authorizing war did not go through. In fact there is some evidence that Prince Bandar Bush, had asked Putin to just boycott the UNSC voting and let it go through in exchange for Saudi money. Last week also French (current war-whore of US) after their great humiliation with the advent of Russia-US deal, tabled another UN resolution which Russia shoved it up French rectum.

    2- I agree.

    3- I agree. But even with chemical weapons, you can not deter these guys. Syria is the case. Iraq before it. Libya still had some chemical weapons left when it was attacked. The only true deterrence comes from nuclear weapons. If North Korea could do it under much harsher conditions, it was doable for Syria too. Unfortunately Assad’s father was not as a visionary as was Kim’s father. But it is all irrelevant now. What is important is for Iran to learn its lessons and do not allow that Iran become a chip to be played between US and Russia. Only nuclear weapons guarantee sovereignty in a world infested with WASPs’.

  134. James Canning says:


    How many years do you think it will take to destroy Syria’s CW? Two? Five?

  135. James Canning says:


    Winston Churchill would have been unlikely to favor a US attack on Syria. And the US was fortunate the British Parliament did not approve UK intervention in Syrian civil war.

  136. Karl.. says:


    1. Correct, so why would Syria worry that Russia wouldnt use a veto when there was no sigh for that?

    3. I think you missunderstood me here, I meant that CW DO play a role, they (CW) were important enough for the US, obviously.

  137. fyi says:

    Smith says:
    September 15, 2013 at 11:59 am

    I think that Mr. Obama’s comments must be understood as “posturing for domestic audiences” in the United States.

    The position of the United States vis-à-vis Iran has not changed; she is at an economic war against Iran.

    My surmise is that the recent letter exchanges have been devoid of any tactically or strategically positive benefits for Iran; very likely the events of the last 3 weeks had rendered Mr. Obama’s letters useless.

    Mr. Obama can still go to war with Iran but it will not be a small short war; the United States has to be prepared to fight from Hindu Kush to the Mediterranean Sea in a war that will suck in more countries.

    Mr. Obama can no longer even achieve a small deal with Iran – he can only hope to keep the diplomatic exercise going until he leaves office.

    The events of the last 21 days have been a God-send for Iran – disabusing anyone in Iranian leadership as well as other leaders of other international actors that US policy in regards to Iran is anything but the destruction of the Islamic Republic.

  138. James Canning says:


    Define the “rape” you claim Obama intends, for Iran. Suspension of enrichment of uranium to 20%?

  139. James Canning says:


    John Kerry hinted the US might accept Iranian enrichment to 5%. I think the UK, China, Germany and Russia accept such enrichment, or would accept. France apparently is a holdout.

  140. James Canning says:


    You suggest that Iran might seek to prevent any limit on number of certrifuges, amounts of stockpiled enriched uranium, etc., and that this could not be acceptable to the P5+1. I agree that P5+1 would not accept that.

  141. fyi says:

    James Canning says:
    September 15, 2013 at 1:11 pm

    Likely a decade – under the current circumstances.

    This could serve as the pretext for the start of a de facto cease-fire to facilitate the process of CW destruction in Syria.

    The cease-fire could then be followed by a 2-Constitution Process; an interim one during which national elections could take place and a permanent developed during the short life-time of the interim constitution.

    But for this vision to be realized, the Axis Powers war against Iran must be dismantled.

    I doubt that this would take place; Axis Powers have spent too much effort and squandered a lot of resources (as well as forcing others to carry the costs of their policies such as South Korea, India, UAE, Sir Lanka) to turn around and say: “Sorry, we were wrong. We are going to take a different tack.”

    So, in my estimation, the war in Syria and for Syria will continue until the Syrian Government prevails.

    There could be no positive changes during the remainder of Mr. Obama’s presidency.

  142. Smith says:

    Karl.. says:
    September 15, 2013 at 1:15 pm

    1- Because Syria is just a game for Russia. It is not vital for it. Russia used it to score a point with US and ridicule US and its president and promoting itself as the beacon of peace and international law. When Russia had done the deal, who the hell are the peasant slave Syrians to go about and reject it? Even if they did in the middle of a civil war, then Russia would simply withdraw its support and US will go in big time, overthrow Assad and put the British Wahabis in power. The chemical weapons obviously will not deter US when Russia withdraws its support from Syria. No body asked Syria for this deal. It was put through by two guns to the head of Assad. One American. One Russia. Try to dodge that.

    3- They do play a role. But not against WASPs’. For example North Korea has the largest chemical weapon stockpile in the world. It is said that almost all of it is pointed at Seoul. In fact there is so much nerve, blood and choking chemicals ready to be fired on five minute alert, that it is said Seoul would drown in a thick foggy mist for weeks. But South Koreans are not WASPs’s. Also their capital is within 53 seconds trajectory of North Korean artillery shells. In order to deter WASPs’ and their war-whores/house niggers something that Syria needs, you need to have nuclear weapons. Look at Russia. It has deployed half a dozen rusting cargo landing ships and just a single old rusting destroyer in the area. US and its war whores have by comparison deployed almost a hundred war ships there. But the US is wetting and soiling its pants with fear. The reason is not Russia’s conventional forces. For all practical purposes Russia could have sent fishing boats and even lagans there. Americans would still be afraid. That fear is coming from Russia’s nuclear weapons. You sink the Russian lagan and then a few dozen of American/European cities will be no more. This is called real deterrence. Even Putin admits to it in his NYT article.

  143. James Canning says:


    Hitler made deal with Britain and France that if the Sudentenland area of Czechoslovakia was taken from that country and made available for annexation by Germany, he would not try to annex the rest of the country. He then turned around and annexed most of the remainder of Czechoslovakia.

    How is this comparable to the situation in the Middle East today?

    What specifically is the “appeasement” you apprear to think the US demands? Specifics, please.

  144. Karl.. says:


    1. I agree that Russia care about itself here, but aslong as there was no threat to NOT use the veto I see no reason why Syria would have feared that.
    Syria agreed to the deal before Russia/US began its discussions.

    3. Ok we have to agree to disagree on this point. CW played a part for the US and Israel, now this threat is gone.

  145. Smith says:

    fyi says:
    September 15, 2013 at 1:15 pm

    That is right. Though with sanctions continuing, Iranian leaders also must prepare to answer to their own domestic audience after US refuses to see Iran as a legitimate nation having the right to live free in the world. In fact Rouhani in recent weeks has referred to this fact by saying that Iranian nation can not wait for a deal forever. My hunch is that Iran will pull out of NPT in 2014. A nuclear test will then follow with people of Iran pouring onto street for celebrations. When you have paid the price, why not have the goodie as well, right?

  146. James Canning says:


    When I argue that Iran needs a deal with P5+1, even of limited scope and implied, I mean I think it will help alleviate the current dangerous situation. So, such a deal would have “worth”.

  147. Smith says:

    Karl.. says:
    September 15, 2013 at 1:36 pm

    1- Because, as much as we want to believe but Syria is not that much independent as to have its opinion matter specially in middle of a civil war.

    3- Good. It actually played a role against Saddam and until recently against Israel. Saddam is gone and Israel now has very good defenses against chemical weapons and short range missiles. CW do not play much of a role in deterring US. To deter US, you need to have nuclear weapons. CW does not cut it anymore. Actually nothing else cuts it anymore. Not even international law, morality, an air force with 500 top line fighters, nothing. Only nuke tipped ICBMs’ preferentially pointed at a small island that is a favorite whore of US. The whore will stop US every time.

  148. fyi says:

    Smith says:
    September 15, 2013 at 1:38 pm

    I do not know about a possible nuclear test but I suspect that Mr. Rouhani is preparing the grounds for Iran leaving NPT.

    I think the exact date would be left is probably undetermined as of yet.

    At any rate, the statement was made before the events of the past 3 weeks.

  149. Smith says:

    fyi says:
    September 15, 2013 at 1:43 pm

    You are right. Lets see what happens.

  150. Smith says:

    Obama calling Syria “deal”, a lesson for Iran:

    Iran needs nuclear weapons more than ever. Point them at UK.

  151. James Canning says:


    You think Rouhani’s statements that he wants to resolve the nuclear dispute and get rid of the sanctions mean he in fact wants Iran to leave NPT and incur more sanctions? Amazing.

  152. Karl.. says:


    Right but Russia showed no sign not to use its veto, contrary, it repeatedly ruled out use of force in those resolutions.

    September 15, 2013 at 1:49 pm

    Obama have no sense whatsoever for diplomacy. Here we have Rouhani sending letters to Obama but no, obama still threat Iran. Shows that no matter what Iran does its not enough..

  153. Smith says:

    fyi says:
    September 15, 2013 at 1:43 pm

    Isn’t it amazing that things you were saying, Putin copied and wrote an article for NYT? You should sue him and NYT for that.

  154. Karl.. says:

    Why Trita Parsi cant be taken seriously..

  155. Smith says:

    Karl.. says:
    September 15, 2013 at 1:59 pm

    Yeah, but you have to realize that countries like Russia or US see nations like Syria as savage peasants. Not as human beings. They can do anything at any time. See this:

    It is amazing how many times these states ditched and then became “allies” of Iran to play their game for power and corruption on earth. Believe me but if Assad had not accepted what Russians had decided for him, Putin would have immediately dropped him and let Americans have their war. This is the nature of these powers.

    As for Obama, he is doing what he is being told to do. He is just a puppet. The cabal is fixated on Iran. The only way to deter it, is by taking its favorite whore hostage (that is also incidentally part of the cabal too).

  156. Smith says:

    Karl.. says:
    September 15, 2013 at 2:05 pm

    When you sell your soul to cabal, then it does not really matter.

  157. Fiorangela says:

    James Canning says: September 15, 2013 at 1:19 pm

    Define the “rape” you claim Obama intends, for Iran. Suspension of enrichment of uranium to 20%?

    + + +

  158. fyi says:

    James Canning says:
    September 15, 2013 at 1:58 pm

    You are again being willfully obstinate.

    Every single Iranian government since the end of the Iran-Iraq War has been interested in and expressing the will to resolve Iran’s differences with the Axis Powers.

    Dr. Ahmadinejad, on numerous occasions, expressed this sentiment: “we want to participate in the management of the world affairs..”.

    Axis Powers are a billion people and their leaders believed that they could crush Iran – much less needing her help in the management of world affairs.

    Mr. Rouhani is stating that Iran is ready for doing business.

    Axis Powers are not; their aims remain the same – dismantling of Iran’s nuclear capability followed with the destruction of the Islamic Republic through a manufactured cause belli.

    Until and unless the US and EU planners accept the limitations of their own power in opposing the new Shia-Irani power in the Near East, there could be no change.

    Iran will get nuclear weapons, that is no longer subject to discussion.

  159. Smith says:

    Fiorangela says:
    September 15, 2013 at 2:12 pm

    I guess this sole picture is more descriptive of the fact. Agent orange, DU, white phosphorous etc etc under then name of human rights and freedom and shit and this is the result (millions of children around the world are afflicted because of Umbrella Corporation’s use of chemical and radiological weapons alone):

  160. James Canning says:


    Do you still contend China did not tell the UAE that it wants Iran to stop enriching uranium to 20%?

    Do you argue China would accept Iranian enrichment to 20?

  161. James Canning says:


    You actually believe Britain and Germany, and France, want to end Iran’s enrichment of all uranium, to enable a US attack on Iran for purposes of regime change? Serioulsy delusional, in my view.

    Yes, many fanatical supporters of Israel in the US and elsewhere, want regime change in Iran. Iran should not help these enemies of Iran.

  162. James Canning says:


    There is virtually ZERO chance Iran could build and deploy nukes.

  163. Karl.. says:


    September 15, 2013 at 1:59 pm

    With this I agree fully, problem is as we have agreed upon earlier, the military weakness and lack of nuclear deterrence for Iran and similar states throughout the world. That is why Iraq got attacked, why Libya got attacked, why North Korea and Iran is threatened.

  164. James Canning says:


    Militarist elements of Israel lobby (Aipac, ADL, et al) push hard for Obama attack on Syria, and hope for setting up attack on Iran.

    I applaud Putin’s opinion piece in The New York Times Sept. 11.

    Obama has to placate the powerful financiers on whom Democrats depend for success in national elections.

  165. James Canning says:


    Gaddafi knew he has ZERO chance of building and deploying nukes. ZERO. Full stop.

  166. James Canning says:

    Fans of McLaughlin Group (PBS TV in America) should not miss Pat Buchanan’s comment last week, re: Putin’s op-ed in NYT. Putin “put one right down the chimney”, meaning frantic unhappy reaction in Washington to Putin’s condemnation of notion of US as the “exceptional nation”.

  167. Smith says:

    Karl.. says:
    September 15, 2013 at 2:38 pm

    Fully agreed. After studying this issue for years, I have come to conclusion that only nuclear deterrence is viable. Nothing else.

  168. James Canning says:


    I will say this yet again: Saddam Hussein was INCOMPETENT. STUPID. ETC ETC.

    He knew there was a conspiracy to set up an illegal invasion of his country. He failed to execute PR moves to block the conspriacy.

  169. James Canning says:


    And your study of “Anglo-Saxon” foreign and defence policies convinces you Britain and the US slaughtered far more people that Nazi Germany of Stalin’s Soviet Union?

  170. James Canning says:

    or (Stalin’s USSR)

  171. fyi says:

    James Canning says:
    September 15, 2013 at 2:33 pm

    I think once there are about 20 nuclear-armed states in the world then the Peace of Yalta could be renegotiated.

    That is because with 20 nuclear-armed states, there will emerge a collection of ad-hoc alliance based on threat perception and opportunity costs pertaining to these nuclear-armed states.

    Each of these localized alliances, in essence, will underpin a corresponding local “jus”.

    You can see this in the nascent jus obtaining among Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Oman, Armenia.

    I hope that these then could be forged into a universal jus – under-pinned by states with long-range nuclear weapons.

  172. James Canning says:

    Yuri Ushakov, Russian spolesman, quoted on PressTV Sept. 15th: “negotiations on Iran have the chance to succeed” [referring to P5+1]. I agree with him.

  173. James Canning says:


    A problem with your analysis: if Iran fails to make deal with P5+1, of some sort, a blockade of Iranian oil exports by sea likely would come. You think Iran can live without such exports?

  174. James Canning says:


    Prior to Aug. 21, it seemed clear Obama was willing to allow Syrian gov’t to win the civil war, using conventional weapons. You agree?

  175. fyi says:

    James Canning says:
    September 15, 2013 at 2:53 pm

    Let us play out this game of chicken.

    US and possibly France will blockage Iranian ports.

    Iranians will declare Shat-al Arab Waterway as a closed Military zone.

    Iraq will not be able to export oil – excepting through the Turkish pipeline – which will get sabotaged repeatedly.

    Likewise, oil pipe-lines on the Arabian Peninsula will get blown up repeatedly; Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE do not have enough soldiers to perform guarding of those pipelines (tens of thousands of troops would be needed.)

  176. Fiorangela says:

    fyi threw out diversionary tactics, so an extraordinary declaration by Chaim Weizmann in 1921 was not discussed —

    ” “Britain . . .understood sooner and better than any other nation that the Jewish Question, which hangs like a shadow over the world, may become a gigantic force of construction or a mighty element of destruction.“

    http goingtotehran dot com slash russias-syria-proposal-disarming-assador-obama#comment-18371

    Is that bipolarity a characteristic of “the Jewish [people]” uniquely, or is it intrinsic in human nature, or is it a behavior that is somehow taught and reinforced?.

    If it’s human nature, then shouldn’t all cultural groups everywhere display the same bipolarity?

    Is it helpful to define how one or the other of these polar reactions is triggered?

    Phil Weiss interviewed young people — and older people– in Israel recently. He reported that

    “The only Israelis who want the U.S. to attack Syria are young Jews. They are militant. But their parents say Obama missed his chance and nothing will be gained by attacking Syria.”

    Weiss added a personal observation:

    “I observed these attitudes in interviews with a dozen Jewish Israelis in Jerusalem the day before Yom Kippur.
    The young people are frightening. They are far more rightwing and militant than their elders.

    Where does that “frightening” behavior come from? Is it racially imprinted? Does that give credence to the racism that so many decry in Hitler?

    I don’t think so.

    I think it’s taught/learned behavior.

    As for adult opinions, Weiss discovered that:

    “They are angry with Obama for confusing the matter of red lines when it comes to Iran’s nuclear program, but they are also upset with the Israel lobby for pushing a war when they are the ones who have to get gasmasks.”

    [re those gas masks — are they distributed to Palestinian Arabs or only to Israeli Jews?]

  177. fyi says:

    James Canning says:
    September 15, 2013 at 2:58 pm


    Hardly at all.

    The Axis Powers could not do anything more to help anti-government forces short of direct intervention.

    So they waited for the cause belli to be manufactured by their Saudis.

    Next came the clumsy PR that did not even show respect to the intelligence of typical citizen of these states – treating them like children who would swallow any hare-brained scheme cooked-up by their betters in their government.

    Prior to August 21, Axis Powers were facing another strategic defeat, this time in the Levant.

    Each defeat, brings the day of reckoning with Iran closer as it makes the Shia-Irani power more powerful.

  178. James Canning says:


    You think Iran could prevent China from obtaining oil by sea from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, UAE, etc?

  179. fyi says:

    James Canning says:
    September 15, 2013 at 3:07 pm

    Yes, certainly from Iraq and for the rest of them Iran can disrupt the flow of oil at acceptable costs to herself, in my opinion.

    Whether her leaders elect to do so or not is opaque to me; but the scenario I sketched out for you is plausible.

    Iran can retaliate, that was my point.

    I am sure Axis planners have considered this scenario and come up with their own escalatory responses.

    You have to understand that the blocking of Iranian oil exports will be just the start of the Axis Powers – Iran War.

  180. Jay says:

    James Canning says:
    September 15, 2013 at 1:33 pm


    having learned about your ideas regarding the practicability and utility of some form of compromise, I’d like to leave you with these thoughts.

    From Wikipedia:
    “Appeasement in a political context, is a diplomatic policy of making political or material concessions to a (potential) enemy power (or powers) in order to avoid a threatened conflict.”

    I think you need to contemplate the implications; beyond this one instance involving Iran.

    The inability of the League of Nations to resolve conflicts by upholding principles, combined with the inability of individual nations to respect the legal framework they had signed on to – instantiated by Chamberlin’s appeasement of the Nazis – led to the disaster that costs millions of lives.

    The US president has already trumpeted his Syrian model as a model to be applied to Iran – threat of force as a means to compel negotiations on rights of nations. Mr. Obama believes that the Iraq/Libya engagement was a debacle. However, to him, the debacle is simply in the method and the approach – not in applying the principle of threat under which it is practiced. This is a very dangerous principle!

    The same appeasement policy practiced under the leadership of Chamberlin, the policy that led to the slippery slope of increasingly aggressive push by Germans to push international legal boundaries, is taking shape once again. To the limited extent that analogies apply, the US, faced with economic havoc at home, is aggressively pursuing resource reallocation abroad. As many prominent US politicians have noted, if for nothing else but the sake of US alone, we must push against this strategy.

    UK’s position, as hinted by you, as a means to reduce “danger” by appeasing the US, is dangerous policy for both the US and the UK – and, certainly dangerous for Iran.

  181. James Canning says:


    I fail to see any “resource allocation” by the US, involved in the Iranian nuclear dispute.

    Do you think Krushchev “appeased” the US, when he agreed to remove missiles and nukes from Cuba? This agreement ensured the US would not invade Cuba. Was it “appeasement”? Or just good sense.

    Many of Hitler’s own generals thoughts he was a madman. They were correct. In my view.

  182. James Canning says:


    I take a special interest in European politics etc that led to the catastropphe of the Second World War. A number of people involved in the key decisions were relatives of friends of mine.

  183. James Canning says:


    I think Obama would do well to let the Russian take lead on getting rid of Syrian CW. Less talk of US attack would be welcome, to me at least.

  184. James Canning says:


    Did the US blockade of Cuba result in the Third World War? No, fortunately. Castro seemed eager enough for one.

    Would Iran seek to help possible effort to overthrow gov’t of Iraq, to punish the US? Perhaps not a good move.

    China would not approve of Iranian effort to block oil exports from the Gulf.

  185. James Canning says:


    Best inside information I have is that Obama was prepared to allow Syrian gov’t to win the civil war, prior to Aug. 21. A good article on this issue appeared in The Times of London not long ago.

  186. Fiorangela says:

    Jay says: September 15, 2013 at 3:45 pm

    Help me out here, Jay.

    in “FDR and the Jews,” authors Breitman and Lichtman wrote,

    “Upon gaining power in 1933, Adolf Hitler and other leading Nazis
    targeted fro persecution alleged blood enemies of the German race.
    Yet before the war Nazi oppression of German Jews followed a jagged trajectory. Some Nazi activists physically assaulted Jews in the early exuberant days of Hitler’s semilegal revolution. Once secure in their authority, Nazi officials curbed personal violence, but enacted a series of discriminatory laws and decrees, what contemporary observers called Hitler’s “cold pogrom” against Jews. Only in late 1938 did central authorities instigate the violence. “

    I’m not real good at reading things critically. Do you see any contradictions in the above paragraph?

  187. kooshy says:

    محمد جواد ظریف در گفتگو با المیادین :
    اوباما هیچ نامه‌ای برای روحانی درباره سوریه ارسال نکرده است / ایران اعتمادی به آمریکا ندارد

    Iran Foreign minster Mr. Zarif just denied that Iranian President Mr. Rouhani has received any letter from Mr. Obama with regard to Syria adding
    Iran has no trust in US (what US says)

  188. Jay says:

    James Canning says:
    September 15, 2013 at 4:36 pm

    I do not see the parallel in your example. In the case you mention the US was not attempting to ignore or override international frameworks. In the case of Iran, the US is asking for Iran to forego of a right afforded to her. How are they parallel?

    With regard to “resource allocation”, I invite you to research oil contracts in Kurdish Iraq and Libya, for example.

    We seem to be “dancing” around a very simple point. Are international agreements worth anything if at any point any party can demand to override them? Yes or no?

  189. Karl.. says:


    Why would obama lie here? Not that obama wouldnt lie, rather what would he gain by saying that? Maybe FM dont know about these letters at all.

  190. Jay says:

    Fiorangela says:
    September 15, 2013 at 4:48 pm


    I am uncertain as to what you are asking me.

    Nazis perpetrated many horrible things! German economic burden was not an excuse for the aggressive policies undertook by the Germans. Many of great nations, under severe economic burden, have resorted to the practice of “inventing” enemies larger than life! The enemies may be real, but their potency is far from the myth often propagated. Of course, analogies are often less than perfect, yet the coincidence of militarism, building mythical scale enemies, and suppression of rights at home are parallels that are too hard to ignore.

    If I misunderstood your point, please help me by elaborating on your question further.

  191. Smith says:

    Noam Chomsky: U.S. Has Been Torturing Iranians for 60 Years ==>

  192. Smith says:

    Karl.. says:
    September 15, 2013 at 5:18 pm

    No body is lying. FM just says that these letters have nothing to do with Syria. Read between the lines. Then he adds that we can not trust US. It seems things did not go well, as fyi said it above, these exchanges happened before the recent Syria fiasco which makes these exchanges now void after US war mongering there. Also note that Obama making these exchanges public hurts the trust of Rouhani. So Obama has revealed these now for his own political benefit at home, not for the good of Iranians. He wants to show to Americans that he threatened Iran in his message and Iranian replied by being so and so scared that they have got the message. In fact Obama is angry at Putin but he can not beat him up so he has Iran in his sight to beat up.

  193. kooshy says:

    No letter with regard to “Syria” he sent letters on other issues, the FM seats in SNSC is highly unlikely any foreign issue not to be discussed there

  194. Smith says:

    Kerry tells Israel that there will be no deal with Iran and assures Israelis that Iran will either be raped through diplomacy or through war:

  195. kooshy says:

    Obama can’t beat anybody any more his foreign policy is done, killed in Syria by Putin, he has conceded, don’t fall for the Monday morning quarterbacking of the US media. Starting next week he is going to get beaten badly by the republicans especially on debt limit, OC, etc. rest of his presidency he will be fighting congress to have the government function. His empty threat of Iran is for domestic use like Iranians say he tries to pretend that “Lotti Na Bakhteh” this south side organizer like he is known there he is just A cheap Shot.

  196. kooshy says:

    He lost leading the initiative with that he throws the allies under the bus , as is evident even his party’s members agree that he is done on FP

    “Top congressional Democrats and Republicans differed Sunday about how the United States’ effort to solve the Syria crisis swerved from a threat of military force to a possible diplomatic solution, but they agreed that Russian President Vladimir Putin is now leading the effort.”

    Read more:

    If you guys want to bring him back to life because that could be your best hope to get raped, go ahead.

  197. Smith says:

    Peace for all. Hopefully when Iran leading the way, two dozen other nations become nuclear weapon states, then white man becomes incapable of drinking human blood anymore:

  198. James Canning says:


    Putin’s “leading on Syria” is a good thing for the US. In my view.

  199. James Canning says:


    I do not think it was necesary for Kerry to travel to Israel to assure Netanyahu there is no chance the US will allow Iran to build nukes.

    Notion that Obama’s failure to attack Syria means he is not willing to ensure Iran does not build nukes, is false.

  200. James Canning says:


    Your claim that Russia and China want to “rape” Iran, via P5+1 negotiations, is rubbish.

  201. James Canning says:


    My understanding is that all Six Powers want Iran to stop enriching to 20. Even if NPT would allow such enrichment. Why the big deal, in your mind?

  202. James Canning says:


    Regarding “resource allocation” and the overthrow of Gaddafi, my understanding is that all contracts for oil and gas etc made by Gaddafi, have been honored by Libyan gov’t.

    China appears to be doing the best out of Iraqi oil, since overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Is this “resource allocation” by the US?

  203. Sineva says:

    Jay says:
    September 15, 2013 at 5:13 pm
    Good luck with getting a straight answer out of him

  204. Sineva says:

    James Canning says:
    September 15, 2013 at 6:56 pm
    Because it is irans RIGHT to do so and whatever the p5+1 may demand does not change that

  205. Sineva says:

    James Canning says:
    September 15, 2013 at 4:43 pm
    The only ones wanting to start a war were the american military,castro was trying to defend his counry from american aggression and make sure the russian didnt double cross him,yet again you seek to find excuses for,and to justify,the actions of the west while looking to blame everyone else.The cause of the cuban missile crisis was the west thinking that when they did something it was okay but when the russians did exactly the same thing then that was unacceptable

  206. Lysander says:

    BiBiJon and Richard Steven Hack Regarding Russian Navy presence near Syria.

    I recommend for a lot of great analysis of what the Russian Navy is doing. Here is my brief Summary:

    RSH is correct that they will not engage US navy. But they are there for a lot more than ‘evacuation.’ What the Russian ships CAN do, and very likely WOULD do is be Syria’s eyes and ears in the event of war. These Russian ships carry VERY powerful radars and eavesdropping equipment. And they can data-link with the Syrians on land with encryption. If the Tomahawks destroy Syrian radar (which is usually the purpose of the initial tomahawk barrage), they will still be able to rely on Russian ship radar.

    They would be able to warn the Syrians the minute tomahawks are launched and their heading. Since these cruise missiles are subsonic, and because US ships have to keep a safe distance from Syrian shore defenses, that gives them 30-60 minutes heads up. In other words, the US cannot achieve tactical surprise. Furthermore, Buk air-defense systems, which Syria DOES have, can shoot down tomahawks if they have a data-feed from the Russian ships.

    In fact, the Russian ships can actually “paint” US aircraft and guide Syrian SAMs straight to them. Now I seriously doubt they will do that, because the US military would be fit to be tied if they did. But no one on the us side could be sure they wouldn’t. And the tomahawk thing they would do. And imagine the embarrassment if, say just 50% of the tomahawks were shot down?

    And the only way the US could stop it is by sinking Russian ships, which is just as implausible as the Russians attacking the US navy. The heavier and destroyers are there to protect the intelligence and radar ships, not from the US navy, but from any “accidental” Liberty like incident, should somebody decide to be cute. The landing ships could just as easily be bringing weaponry as evacuating. I have not heard anything about the 30,000 Russians in Syria needing to be evacuated, nor has the Russian government (AFAIK) issued any warnings to them to leave, beyond the ordinary risk of civil war.

    I have no doubt that this played a role in Obama’s decision to avoid war (for now.)

    That said, the Kerry-Lavrov agreement does not sound very good and the idea that inspectors can go spying around everywhere and then bitch and moan when the Syrians balk at letting them check for chemical weapons in Assad’s bedroom sucks. But hopefully the Russians have thought that through and if half the inspectors are Russians and Chinese, they might force the others to be reasonable.

  207. James Canning says:

    “We’d be happy to [meet with Rohani]” in New York, said the Foreign Office (Daily Telegraph Sept. 15). Hague earlier said Britain seeks “reciprocal steps to improve relations [betwen Iran and UK].” Report is by Damian McElroy.

  208. James Canning says:


    You are quite right that most of Kennedy’s military advisers wanted to attack Cuba.

    Castro said he was happy to sacrifice Cuba in the cause of international socialism. Castro speculated, with grim humour perhaps, that the elevation of Cuba after the war would be below sea level.

    THAT SAID, it was far far better for the planet, that Kennedy imposed the blockade rather than follow advice of the generals.

  209. James Canning says:


    Whom was I “blaming” for Cuban Missile Crisis?

    Did the Soviet leadership remove Krushchev from power because they thought his Cuba gambit was too dangerous?

    Perhaps Kennedy would have agreed not to invade Cuba, even if USSR did not put miissiles (and nukes) into Cuba?

  210. James Canning says:

    Could we expect a statement from the office of the Secretary of State, that Kerry would be happy to meet with Rouhani in New York? Obama too?

  211. Sineva says:

    James Canning says:
    September 15, 2013 at 1:24 pm
    So are you now finally conceding that 20% enrichment is just a smoke screen and that it is enrichment period that is unacceptable to the west?,no doubt you probably think that in addition to iran unilaterally giving up 20% enrichment it should also unilaterally shut down fordow and limit its centrifuges to a few thousand in the hope that this gesture of appeasement will satisfy the west

  212. fyi says:

    James Canning says:
    September 15, 2013 at 7:57 pm

    He was removed because he showed sense, which was considered a weakness.

  213. fyi says:

    James Canning says:
    September 15, 2013 at 4:46 pm

    I find that information unpersuasive in the light of what transpired after August 21-th:

    US, UK, and French leaders pounced on that incident and turned into a cause belli.

    US, UK, French pronouncements on such basic facts as even the number of casualties were different.

    US, UK, France failed to publish their case – they supplied no information that could be persuasively construed to have demonstrated the culpability of Syrian government forces or Mr. Assad.

    No, this was a well-organized and well-orchestrated campaign that Axis Powers and their local Barons had prepared.

    It would be the decent thing for the Noble Committee to ask Mr. Obama to return his Peace Prize.

    It would make sense to me that the award be given to the English People and Mr. Putin.

  214. fyi says:

    James Canning says:
    September 15, 2013 at 7:59 pm

    Nothing positive in the Near East is going to come out of Mr. Obama’s government for the rest of his term.

    One could only hope that he does no more damage.

  215. Smith says:

    fyi says:
    September 15, 2013 at 8:02 pm

    They are the epitome of bravery. It is not easy to stand up to American created/armed/supported/directed wahabi alqaeda cannibal rapist terrorists. It is unfortunate that Iran still can not launch geostationary satellites so that it can send in armed drones to blow up these western funded terrorists. It would have been much more efficient.

  216. Smith says:

    fyi says:
    September 15, 2013 at 8:33 pm

    I hope it is going to be mutual special taking into account that Afghanistan is the world’s largest producer of heroin, opium and cannabis which are then exported to Iran under the direction of UK troops. Also the plight of Iranians women sold into sexual slavery in Afghanistan who now can not leave Afghanistan:

  217. BiBiJon says:

    Lysander says:
    September 15, 2013 at 7:27 pm

    I would just add to your list of capabilities that the Russian/Chinese have brought to the Med, is the ability to quickly land 2 divisions of marines complete with their equipment to protect Tartus and Damascus should ‘rebels’ take advantage; boots on the ground if need be.

    On the deal just singed between the US and Russia, I think too much hand wringing is being done. There is no use of force threat, but a possibility for consideration of use of force at UNSC where Russia and China retain a veto power. In other words, a toothless provision alluding to hypothetical situations, and hypothetical remedies. Russia did not go weak. They had no interest in humiliating Obama. Inclusion of some meaningless language in the agreement to allow Obama to sound tough suits Russia very well.

    The inspection regime while theoretically could be abused ala Iraq, is another meaningless verbiage added to the text as a fig leaf for Obama. Everyone realizes without Syria’s voluntary cooperation CW is too easy to hide, and/or reconstitute. Also, with public opinion indicating a certain amount of war-weary vigilance, the games that UNSCOM played in Iraq will create a whole new cycle of derision, and public revolt if it was tried in Syria 10 years later.

    IMHO, Syria’s CW disarmament will go smoothly under the watch of Iran and Russia. During this time Syrian army will expand and consolidate areas under her control. The last CW will be destroyed at the same time as the last rebel holdouts have been liberated.

  218. kooshy says:

    BiBiJon says:
    September 15, 2013 at 9:29 pm

    I totally agree, they already tried to mobilize public opinion with a false flag alleged use of CW by Assad, that it didn’t work in UK or US even in French mentality which (with my experience) still feels an ownership of Syria. One would wonder why should, and what would, grantee public opinion will change and will support another war a year later with or without UN inspectors support.

    Giving up war now just so you can have a better war a year later never happens (remember you go to war with what you have not what you want) it is like giving up chance of attacking Iran in 03 for a hope of having a better Public, Military, Political, Economic support in 2013. One can be sure those decision makers’ likes of Dick war criminal Cheney are regretting that incapable decision every day of their life.

  219. Sineva says:

    James Canning says:
    September 15, 2013 at 7:57 pm
    “Perhaps Kennedy would have agreed not to invade Cuba, even if USSR did not put miissiles (and nukes) into Cuba?”
    Does the bay of pigs mean anything to you james
    James Canning says:
    September 15, 2013 at 4:36 pm
    That was a quid pro quo as I`m sure you well know,in return for the russians shipping their missiles back home the us withdrew its missiles from turkey and promised not to invade cuba.If you want a good definition of appeasement I can think of none better than the one which gave appeasement such a bad name

  220. kooshy says:

    This written by a major right wing American media is shocking they republicans are going after Mr. Obama faster than I thought , I bet next Obama will throw some of his staff’s heads to the republican wolfs. We will see heads rolling in coming weeks.

    Inside White House, a Reversal on Syrian Arms
    How the U.S. stumbled into an international crisis and then stumbled out of it.

    “This account of an extraordinary 24 days in international diplomacy, capped by a deal this past weekend to dismantle Syria’s chemical-weapons stockpile, is based on more than two dozen interviews with senior White House, State Department, Pentagon and congressional officials and many of their counterparts in Europe and the Middle East. The events shed light on what could prove a pivotal moment for America’s role in the world.
    Through mixed messages, miscalculations and an 11th-hour break, the U.S. stumbled into an international crisis and then stumbled out of it. A president who made a goal of reducing the U.S.’s role as global cop lurched from the brink of launching strikes to seeking congressional approval to embracing a deal with his biggest international adversary on Syria, Russian President Vladimir Putin.

    Mr. Obama saw the unintended outcome as better than the alternative: limited strikes that risked pulling the U.S. into a new conflict. It forestalled what could have been a crippling congressional defeat and put the onus on Russia to take responsibility for seeing the deal through. U.S. officials say the deal could diminish Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s chemical stockpile more effectively than a strike, though it leaves Mr. Assad and his conventional arsenal in place.

    “I’m not interested in style points,” Mr. Obama told his senior staff in a closed-door meeting Friday, according to a participant. “I’m interested in results.”

    Not everyone is pleased. Mr. Obama infuriated allies who lined up against Mr. Assad and his regional backers Iran and Hezbollah. French officials, who were more aggressive than the U.S. in urging a strike, feel they have been left out on a limb. And Russia has been reestablished as a significant player on the world stage, potentially at the expense of the U.S.”

  221. M. Ali says:

    Whats everyone’s predictions regarding Syria crisis? Think of it as a game, lets see what everyone predicts by, lets say, during a time period of 30 days (predictions of an undefined time frame is useless).

    My prediction is, this is not over. Obama couldn’t sell the war then, but at the very least, a strike against Syria is US flexing its muscles at Iran, so it has to happen. After the deal falls apart, I think it would be much easier for US to sell the war to its allies and public.

    So I’d say that during November, we’d either have strikes, or would be very close to them.

  222. BiBiJon says:

    M. Ali says:
    September 16, 2013 at 4:34 am

    My prediction for the next 30 days:

    Geneva II will be convened with Iranian participation, leading to very high level diplomatic contacts between US and Iran. The media will start reporting ‘cooperation’, ‘goodwill’, etc. between the 2 sides. Threat of force, chest thumping and drum beating will be entirely absent from the White House vis-a-vis Iran, or Syria.

  223. BiBiJon says:

    M. Ali says:
    September 16, 2013 at 4:34 am

    P.S. Also in the next 30 days …

    Visible cooperation between FSA fighters/command and the Syrian army to root out al-Qaida. You’re going to see a marked uptick in the intensity of battles. You will see Western support for those elements of FSA fighting al-Qaida, and thereby gaining credibility to sit at Geneva II conference as ‘non-terrorists.’

  224. Persian Gulf says:


    Deam on.

    He did the same thing regarding Iran sanction and could get a harsher one.

  225. BiBiJon says:

    Persian Gulf says:
    September 16, 2013 at 8:21 am

    And your predictions for the next 30 days are…..?

  226. Persian Gulf says:


    Obviously, I’m not Nostradamus!
    What I can say is the Iran cooperation is hallucination. You look far more inteligent to say something like that.

    As for Syria, its CW file just became like Iran’s file. Continuous bugging.

  227. BiBiJon says:

    Persian Gulf,

    What leads me to “hallucinate” is unusually direct remarks by Obama and Kerry inviting Iran’s participation. These remarks are unprecedented.

    OBAMA: What we can do — what we can do is make sure that the worst weapons, the indiscriminate weapons that don’t distinguish between a soldier and an infant, are not used. And if we get that accomplished, then we may also have a foundation to begin what has to be an international process in which Assad’s sponsors, primarily Iran and Russia, recognize that this is terrible for the Syrian people, and they are willing to come in a serious way to arrive at some sort of political settlement that would deal with the underlying terrible conflict that’s taking place.

    And I think there’s a way for Mr. Putin, despite me and him having a whole lot of differences, to play an important role in that. And so I welcome him being involved. I welcome him saying, “I will take responsibility for pushing my client, the Assad regime, to deal with these chemical weapons.” Because I think that if, in fact not only Russia gets involved, but if potentially Iran gets involved as well in recognizing that what’s happening there is a train wreck that hurts not just Syrians but destabilizing the entire region…

    It is of course possible that the US still has appetite for further defeats. But, both in public diplomacy, and military brinksmanship, US has hit a solid brick wall. I don’t mean to suggest US has now gone all soft, or that she cannot be relied upon to pursue her interests vigorously. I am suggesting, because of recent experiences in Afghanistan, and Iraq, capped off by the fresh debacle and retreat from bombing Syria, US may well be ready to try pressing her interests in a non-militaristic way.

    I interpret Obama’s words as: if Iran is willing to assist in ridding Syria of CW, and then facilitate a democreatic transition in Syria, that will be a feather in her cap, which will lead the way to be hailed as a ‘trusted member of international community’ which in turn will lead to normalizing the nuclear file. Could he be lying? Of course. There’s not a country that Obama did not first promise dialogue to, and then later did a Veni, Vidi, He Died. Is it worth a try? I believe so, with eyes wide open.

  228. fyi says:

    Persian Gulf says:

    September 16, 2013 at 9:07 am

    I agree that there will not be a Geneva II.

    Iranians will not be helping Axis Powers in Syria or in Afghanistan.

    And Axis Powers are not asking for that help either; crushing Iranian independence is far far more important for them.

  229. Persian Gulf says:


    As I said just dream on. Your naivity only deceives your own people and makes them more disillusioned once the wet dream is gone. It baffles me when I see you still have hope on Obama. Does it mean you have an interest in domestic politics of the US? Probably the same way as someone like Trita Parsi.


    Their perception is they have just got both Iran and Syria trapped, why compromise now?
    So Iran’s gov. can say we are ready for nuclear cooperation, but Obama has to, for domestic consumption, openly threaten Iran. If that’s is the case there will be no deal he would be able to sell internally.

  230. fyi says:

    Persian Gulf says:

    September 16, 2013 at 10:11 am

    I do not believe that there could be any deal.

    2013 was for Axis Powers the crucial year to extract concessions from Iran.

    They failed.

    And the events since August 21, 2013 removed any ambiguity in the positions of Axis Powers vis-a-vis Syria and Iran – destruction of both countries’ current governing structure.

    It is difficult for me to envision Axis Powers to change course now; their leaders always believed that they were going to “Win”.

  231. Sineva says:

    fyi says:
    September 15, 2013 at 8:15 pm
    Agreed,obama has not lived up to even the most basic of hopes invested in him,his policies towards iran have been a straight continuation of bush jrs
    fyi says:
    September 16, 2013 at 9:43 am
    fyi says:
    September 16, 2013 at 11:06 am
    I agree,the cold war status quo will continue

  232. BiBiJon says:

    Persian Gulf says:
    September 16, 2013 at 10:11 am

    Naivete, Dreaming, wet dreaming, etc. ought to be judged in 30 days time. Even then, see if you cannot refrain from insults if someone’s thinking happen not to coincide with yours.

    I don’t think personality matters; Obama, Mother Teresa, will not make a difference. What will, is formulation of a road map that promises to yield equal/more benefits than what is even optimistically possible through the current cul-de-sac of a strategy.

  233. Empty says:


    I think unless we find out what really happened to cause the U-turn by Obama, it would be difficult to predict what would follow. I do not find the explanations offered thus far convincing. I believe the hostilities will continue. Perhaps very soon we will begin to witness the building of another momentum for another episode. The US has gone too far to return and Obama was purchased too expensively to be left alone to lay low. I am hoping for a “leak” to shed light on what really happened.

  234. Persian Gulf says:


    Insults?! Are you sure you have read my comments?

    I would be happy to see your wishes come through. I only see them not for this planet at this juncture in history.

  235. James Canning says:


    Obama’s top general says there is no way the US can determine the outcome in Syria. In terms of who would emerge in control of the country if Bashar al-Assad is overthrown. Ergo, no way to “win”, as such.

  236. James Canning says:

    Persian Gulf,

    I think Rouhani comprehends Obama’s need to posture for domestic political reasons. I of course would prefer Obama not talk openly about attacking Iran (if “necessary”).

  237. James Canning says:


    What is the “independence” you claim Germany seeks to “crush”, in Iran? Specifics plaease.

  238. kooshy says:

    M. Ali says:
    September 16, 2013 at 4:34 am

    I don’t think anything significant will happen in 30 days a direct war with Syria is off for a while till another opportunity can develop and if develop.
    With regard to Iran it’s hard to believe US will ever accept Iran as an independent strategic actor, that I am not sure will ever happens there is no sign of that.
    If the current Iranian situation was that of before the fall of USSR, a China moment was more possible, let say if Russia will be back full force then in some way US can accept a regionally strong Iran with legitimate national interest.
    In my opinion a rapprochement like that of US-China had 2 significant enforcing elements one that US lost the war in SE Asia and had to leave, and the other US wanted to keep the USSR out of pacific, so she was willing to accept and recognize China as a nation with legitimate national interest in Pacific rather than increasing the chance for USSR presence. In our region true that US has lost 2 significant wars like in Nam, but unlike in SE Asia here a new world power hegemon is not yet waiting to replace US place or even to fill the empty gaps. As a result the current balance of power in ME is not totally tilted yet, until a new strong hegemony seeking power forms, which might be in works. Till then the cat and mouse game with this overwhelmingly tired cat will continue.

  239. James Canning says:


    A prominent role for Russia in the Middle East is a good thing for the US. Wall Street Journal may not agree with me.

  240. James Canning says:


    Surely you are aware the Bay of Pigs fiasco ttok place before the Cuban Missile Crisis.

    I take it the sensible deal made by the Soviet Union, with the US, was not “appeasement”, in your view.

    Was Britain prepared for war, at the time of the Munich crisis in 1938? Was war an actual option, for the UK?

  241. James Canning says:


    I would regard a tacit deal between Iran and the US as a positive step. Obama obviously has to be discreet in making overtures toward Iran that Israel lobby does not want.

  242. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    September 16, 2013 at 1:11 pm

    For Germany, Iranians’ opposition to the existence of Israel is unacceptable.

    Furthermore, an independent Iranian policy on the Persian Gulf means that the flow of oil to Europe could be interrupted – under certain circumstance.

    While the German baron cannot do much about its dependence on Russian gas, she sure would not like to repeat that with Iran.

    For EU, and Germany, it best that Iranian independence is crushed.

  243. Smith says:

    UN chemical weapon investigation report for Syria:

    It is very similar to UN reports of chemical weapons use Iran Iraq war during 1980s. It tries its best to hide the perpetrators of the crime and by implication attribute it to the victims. Another reason why UN should have never been housed in US.

  244. Ataune says:

    It seems to me that the US administration lacks the necessary political strength to engage in a broad undertaking against Syria in the near future:

    First of all, one of the major reason for the retreat from the use of force was the Iranian red lines regarding Syria publicly expressed afresh. Military commanders and political leadership in Iran both categorically rejected the backdoor pleas for de-escalation in the case of attack and implied a major conflagration after any forceful move by the US;

    In addition, Obama is in his second term with only 3 years left. He has just enough time to prepare for his succession. He has lost a considerable amount of image and credibility on the matters related to security and foreign policy. Reminding the public opinion on the existing contradiction between his Nobel peace prize and his morally dubious engagement in those arenas is not the best way of proceeding for him. It is therefore more than reasonable to think that his remaining tenure will, and should be, dedicated to avoid risky commitments and enterprises and to prepare for the salvage of one of his main, and only, other big plan, i.e. the Obamacare eventually complemented with an immigration bill, if enough time is left.

  245. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    September 16, 2013 at 1:07 pm

    You still do not seem to understand what has been avoided; not just an unwinable war by US in the Levant but a much wider war of Iran against all those who brought about the destruction of the Ba’ath state in Syria – including Turkey.

    Under certain circumstances in which the Syrian state has been destroyed, Iranians could recongnize the Kurditan Republic comprising of Iraqi and Syrian Kurdish area; thus usher in the destruction of the Turkish Republic in its current form.

    This move makes an independent Iraq impossible (the loss of former Ottoman Mosul Governorate) thus further cementing the Shia Iraq to Shia Iran.

    And both Iranians and Iraqis (Shia Arab, Sunni Arab, Kurd) hate UK and US – they will not fight and die for Axis Powers.

    And I am not even going to speculate as what would happen to the 13 million Alevis in Turkey as they watch their co-religionists killed in Syria.

    Axis Powers and their local allies have been behaving as though they own the Near East – their planners do not seem to graps that others have games up their sleeves as well.

    As for Mr. Obama; no deal with him is possible – that Train Left the Station in 2008.

  246. Smith says:

    Turkey shoots down a Syrian cargo helicopter killing all on board.

  247. James Canning says:


    I am very much aware of the potential for havoc, that an independent Kurdistan would enable.

    And I am confident you are well aware Iran has worked with Turkey and Syria, and Iraq, to prevent this from happening. Partly out of self-ineterest.

    Iran needs to make a deal. Rouhani is aware of this fact.

  248. Smith says:

    Some reports say there are survivors from the helicopter captured by rebels.

  249. James Canning says:


    Most German businessmen would tell you your notion they seek a “crushing” of Iran is simply silly.

    And Iran has indicated it will accept Israel if Palestinians make a deal. You appear to argue Israel must ensure the US goes to war with Iran, for its own protection.

  250. James Canning says:


    All Arab countries have agreed to accept Israel within its 1967 borders. Rouhani obviously knows this.

  251. fyi says:

    Smith says:

    September 16, 2013 at 1:55 pm

    Yes, a provocation.

    Application of the kinematics of projectile motion would indicate that the helicopter was inside the Syrian air-space or returning to it.

  252. James Canning says:

    Spiegel reports today that intelligence sources say Rouhani may be willing to decommission Fordo in exchange for end to sanctions. Sensible proposal to make.

  253. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    September 16, 2013 at 1:59 pm

    Mr. Rouhani and a number of other Iranians need to understand that their problems with Axis Powers are not due to Mr. Ahmadinejad’s governments’ policies; that Axis Powers (the King and His Barons) made a decision to destroy Islamic Iran back in 2003.

    The rest is just gimmicks.

    There is no deal on the table, tacit, implicit or anything else.

    The time for that ended on August 21, 2013.

    Iran can live with an independent Kurish Republic – Turkey cannot.

  254. James Canning says:

    A report in the Financial Times today claimed that Syria’s value to Iran was partly due to Syria’s possession of CW. I question this. Iran may have comprehended Syrian CW were a threat to the government of Syria.

  255. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    September 16, 2013 at 2:04 pm

    German businessmen, indeed European businessmen, do not agree with their political leaders – not in Iraq, not in Libya, not in Syria, and not in Iran.

    Of course all these things are laugable but Axis Powers (the King and Hs Barons) are convinced of the inevitable success of their hare-barined schemes in the Near East.

    After all, they have been successful in the Eastern Europe, why not in the Middle East?

    Only the posession of nuclear weapons pointed at major European cities by Near Eastern states will change the calculations of the Barons – if not the King.

    Nothing has happened since 1998 that in any way, shape, or form to contradict the statement above.

  256. James Canning says:


    You seem to forget the CIA blocked Dick Cheney’s plan for a US war with Iran, in 2006-07.

  257. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    September 16, 2013 at 2:10 pm

    Under a broad strategic understanding, Iranians may de-comssion Fordow but not otherwise.

    You have to understand that Iran’s ability to potentially build a nuclear weapon is not up for negogiations – it would be suicidal for Iran to do otherwise.

  258. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    September 16, 2013 at 2:18 pm

    So, some courtiers in the Court of the King were sane.

    Iran cannot rely on the continued existence of a clique of sane courtiers to avert the King’s schemes.

  259. Smith says:

    fyi says:
    September 16, 2013 at 2:10 pm

    There are lots of actors that are desperate for war, Turkey being one of them. It seems to be only a matter of time.

  260. James Canning says:


    You appear to argue that because the EU now includes states that formerly were part of the Soviet Union, or were largely controlled by the USSR, Germany can expect to “crush” Iranian “indedendence”.

    You are unhappy the EU includes Rumania, Bulgaria, Poland etc etc?

  261. James Canning says:


    CIA continues to tell Obama Iran is not building nukes. You, of course, have tried in effect to undermine the advice the CIA gives Obama. Correct?

  262. James Canning says:


    Turkey “desperate for war”? No. But Erdogan clearly is staking a great deal on achieving overthrow of Syrian gov’t.

  263. James Canning says:


    Do you oppose the offer Rouhani apparently will be making in New York later this month? (To close Fordo)

  264. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    September 16, 2013 at 2:28 pm

    I do not oppose anything except any real limitations on Iran’s ability to manufatcure a nuclear weapon.

    As for Mr. Rohani’s offer; it will be ignored.

  265. James Canning says:


    If Obama “ignores” Rouhani’s offer, I will be surprised. That said, the Israel lobby will pressure O to ignroe the offer.

  266. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    September 16, 2013 at 2:39 pm

    I guess we shall find out rather soon, shan’t we?

  267. Sineva says:

    James Canning says:
    September 16, 2013 at 1:19 pm
    You were the one who very naively said that perhaps the us would not invade,I was pointing out to you a past pattern of behavior,the fact that it happened before the missile crisis is irrelevant.The russians achieved a quid pro quo in cuba ,russian missiles for us missiles that is not appeasement as you very well know and I have stated to you previously,a good definition of appeasement is your idea that iran should unilaterally halt 20% enrichment in order to avoid the possibility of a us attack/blockade.Had the allies stood up to hitler militarily along with the czechs the germans would have had few options

  268. Sineva says:

    James Canning says:
    September 16, 2013 at 2:10 pm
    I very much doubt that the iranians would shut down the most robust and best protected part of their nuclear infrastructure,doing that would leave the rest of irans nuclear assets very vulnerable to an us/israeli strike

  269. Rd. says:

    M. Ali says

    No prediction, however, the most salient fact is US is no longer able to unilaterally dictate world affairs. The fact, that Syrian file is going(gone) under UN speaks to that reality. This does not mean that US has become a peace-nick dove over nite. There will be lots of huffing and puffing from the axis side. And the relevant silence from the israelies and the saudi’s is their shock of being stuck in the morass of their own making. This may be a small step, but a giant leap to better management of world affairs. It will take *SOME* time.

  270. James Canning says:


    Saeed Jalili said that enriching to 20 was not especially important to Iran. Ergo, closing Fordo makes good sense.

  271. James Canning says:


    Yes, Britain and France, with Czechoslovakia, might have avoided war in 1938, at Munich. By rejecting Hitler’s demands. But Britain was not ready for war. Important fact to bear in mind.

    Iran has in effect stopped stockpiling 20U. Closing Fordo would be sensible. Provided adequate value is obtained in exchange.

    I see we agree that Krushchev did not “appease” the US when he made his deal with JFK.
    Even if he complied with Kennedy’s demands.

  272. James Canning says:


    Yes, we may find out soon how O responds to Rouhani’s offer.

  273. Rd. says:

    BiBiJon says:

    “What will, is formulation of a road map that promises to yield equal/more benefits than what is even optimistically possible through the current cul-de-sac of a strategy.”

    This ‘noise’ of opening to Iran, may simply be US effort to gauge its stands against Russia. US has used Russia’s interest to make gains on Iran repeatedly. Now, ‘perhaps’ they are attempting to play ball from the other side in order to make gains on Russia. None the less, the realities on the ground are changing visa-vi US unilateralism.

    And you have to *wonder*, all this noise by canning regards to Iran handing nuclear keys to US is likely the results of the above scenario. I don’t believe all issues will be resolved with US in ‘short’ order. I also don’t believe the hostilities can continue in the same exact manner. US ability to maneuver has been diminished, so they have to play divide and conquer to see if they can make any gains, as the decline continues.

  274. Karl.. says:

    If the offer is true which I dont think, Rouhani seems very naive and easily pressured.

  275. Sineva says:

    James Canning says:
    September 16, 2013 at 3:51 pm
    You are confusing the issue of 20% enrichment with the fordow facility they are two separate things,fordow was designed to be proof against any western pre emptive strikes aimed at destroying irans nuclear program,this decision was taken long before iran was forced to enrich to 20%,even if iran was willing to give up 20% enrichment,a very big if,fordow would remain operational with centrifuges enriching to 5%,it is fordow by virtue of the wests inability to gaurentee its destruction in the event of any osirak style attack that makes the west think twice about that sort of action,and it provides iran with an increasingly credible japan option and it would no doubt be fordow that in the event of the political decision being taken that would be at the heart of any bomb program,so one can see why the west would be very eager for fordow to be shut down,one can also see why that is very unlikely to happen.

  276. nico says:

    “Extreme forms of credit excess across the world have reached or surpassed levels seen shortly before the Lehman crisis five years ago, the Bank for International Settlements has warned.

    The Swiss-based `bank of central banks’ said a hunt for yield was luring investors en masse into high-risk instruments, “a phenomenon reminiscent of exuberance prior to the global financial crisis”.”

  277. Karl.. says:


    So US say “diplomacy, diplomacy, diplomacy” but obama have no balls meeting iranian president for…diplomacy. ANOTHER missed opportunity by obama.

  278. kooshy says:

    Morally and strategically and even commercially it is important that Iran fully support the Shieh communities around the world regardless who they are and where they are.
    In that context supporting strong local Shieh political parties who are legally involved and accepted in the local political order has been a cost effective and a very successful strategy to protect Shieh communities who are wildly spread around the region.

    What is important is that the Shieh leadership correctly can recognizes, controls or responds to any attacks by enemies of Shieh that they value strategically significant. In same time what is even more significant is that they have a commanding control on their communities, restraining them on responding to tactical attacks that are meant to be provocative by enemies of Shieh. As long as this control can and is maintain the Saudi financed al Qaeda attacks in Syria, Iraq and Lebanon will not bear any valuable fruit.

    In this context the rule of local Shieh militias is no longer in a significant way modeled to protect Iran from her external enemies, but rather is to protect their own communities from possible local hostilities.
    This is since Iran’s new military and political capabilities make Iran more capable of deterrence against her external enemies, without the need to destabilize her allies by mobilizing her Shieh militias. For this reason it is more accurate to understand Hezbollah’s involvement in Syria is more to protect the Shieh communities and Hezbollah in Levant than to prevent or stop a possible war on Iran.

  279. Sineva says:

    James Canning says:
    September 16, 2013 at 3:56 pm
    Was britain anymore ready in 39,the germans certainly were in no small part due to the substantial military and industrial loot they obtained from the czechs,and as a certain war mongering scumbag us politician once said “You go to war with the army you have …”

    “Iran has in effect stopped stockpiling 20U. Closing Fordo would be sensible. Provided adequate value is obtained in exchange.”
    Does this mean that you no longer favor appeasement by iran?

  280. James Canning says:


    Yes, the German war machine was enhanced by the addition of Czech munitions facilities etc. But Britain indeed was much better prepared for war, by Sept. 1939.

    I do not see it as “appeasement” if Iran makes a deal with P5+1, any more than it was appeasement for Kruschev to make his deal with JFK in Oct. 1962

  281. James Canning says:


    A failure to meet Rouhani, by Obama, would be an act of stupidity and political cowardice.

  282. James Canning says:


    I think Iran would be wise to close Fordo, to make clear it has no intention whatever of trying to build nukes. None.

    Bashar al-Assad should have disposed of Syria’s CW years ago. For his own sake.

  283. James Canning says:


    If Rouhani’s offer in fact is made, it shows great wisdom and sophistication on the Iranian president’s part. Nothing “naive” about it.

  284. James Canning says:


    You claim I favor Iran’s handing the “nuclear keys” to the US? Meaning what?

  285. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Part one of a series…

    ‘Flooding the Zone’ with Bullshit on Syria

  286. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Part two…

    Syria: Immodest Proposals and Naked Emperors

  287. Jay says:

    Closing Fordo is duckspeak! We have to wait for a reliable source.

  288. Smith says:

    Kerry and McCain’s PhD Syria ‘Expert’ O’Bagy is Exposed As A Fraud, A Charlatan liar:

  289. kooshy says:

    Look to the interesting graphics selected for this article
    A (military) hat too big for his head

    The US with Iran in Syria
    Thursday, September 12, 2013
    Ambassador Seyed Hossein Mousavian

    “The prospect of a US military strike on Syria has dimmed following President Barack Obama’s embrace of an international initiative to take control of Syria’s chemical-weapons stockpile. The eleventh-hour U-turn on the push for military action has come against a backdrop of intensifying diplomatic pressure from the international community to avoid escalation of the violence in Syria. And that outcome is not possible without Iran.

    In a joint press conference with his Syrian counterpart, Walid al-Moallem, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov tabled a proposal, originally agreed with Iran, calling for Syria to “place chemical weapons storage sites under international control.” The stockpiles would then be destroyed and Syria would fully join the international Chemical Weapons Convention. The second component of the Russian-Iranian proposal calls for international efforts, under the auspices of the United Nations Security Council, to rein in Syrian rebel forces’ chemical-weapons capabilities.”

  290. kooshy says:

    Smith says:
    September 16, 2013 at 9:14 pm

    Thanks for the Link
    It sounds like the blame game, mudslinging and head rolling between the Obama and republican’s has already started, after the WSJ article I linked yesterday, today this low life’s credentials is thrown out to public, like all the blunder and FU’s was due to her. I predict more important heads will roll in next few weeks when things get more time distanced.

  291. Fiorangela says:

    “In those days, national CBW programs were not illegal or even at odds with international norms. The 1925 Geneva Protocol, which prohibited the use of CBW in warfare, was silent about developing, and stockpiling such weapons. Moreover, many countries that ratified the Geneva Protocol did so with a reservation reserving the right to employ CBW for retaliation in kind (Israel acceded to the Geneva Protocol only in February 1969.)”

    that is — Syria is NOT at odds with international norms in stockpiling CW.
    Iran would not have been at odds with 1925 Protocol if it had used CW in retaliation for Iraq’s illegal use of CW. Iran, of course, did not do sol

  292. Fiorangela says:

    Jay says: September 15, 2013 at 5:23 pm

    Here’s the quoted passage from “FDR and the Jews” —

    proposition 1: “Upon gaining power in 1933, Adolf Hitler and other leading Nazis
    targeted for persecution
    alleged blood enemies of the German race.

    Yet before the war Nazi oppression of German Jews followed a jagged trajectory.

    Proposition 2: Some Nazi activists physically assaulted Jews in the early exuberant days of Hitler’s semilegal [semilegal? whose ‘legal’ system?]

    Proposition 3: Once secure in their authority, Nazi officials curbed personal violence,

    Proposition 4: but enacted a series of discriminatory laws and decrees, what contemporary observers called Hitler’s “cold pogrom” against Jews.

    Proposition 5: Only in late 1938 did central authorities instigate the violence. “

    Thus, the authors claim that (1) In 1933 Hitler started persecuting the Jews

    (2) only some Nazi activists — implicitly, not Nazi authorities, harmed Jews and that only for a short time until

    (3) the NSDAP government gained authority and actually curbed violence against Jews.

    (4) NSDAP did pass laws that discriminated against Jews,


    (5) there was no [alleged] government sponsored physical violence until 1938.

    The contradiction between Prop. 1. and Prop. 3. seems clear: #1 says ( and your response echoes) “Hitler persecuted Jews !! but two propositions later, the concession, no, NSDAP did not persecute Jews, but it did pass laws that discriminated against Jews.

    The allegation in #5. we’ll set aside.

    I think there’s a radical change of direction from #1 to #3.

    Moreover, the authors do not explain that within a few weeks of Hitler’s affirmation as Chancellor, “International Jewry Declared War on Germany.” The declaration of war was announced in newspapers; rallies against Germans were organized by Jewish leaders in several countries and a number of cities in the United States; mock trials of the NSDAP government were conducted at Madison Square Garden. Rabbis were instructed to preach to their congregation that no German goods were to be bought or sold; picketers appeared at major department stores in US — Sears, Penney’s, etc., where merchants were forced to destroy inventory from Germany, etc. The stated goal was to destroy Germany’s economy, which was struggling under reparations burden and hyperinflation, and was dependent on exports. The Declaration of War stated that “Jews knew that they had the financial power to cripple Germany.”

    This was war, an economic war.

    This morning, Juan Zarate appeared on the Diane Rehm show to explain the U S Treasury Dept.’s financial war on ‘terror.’ It included, of course, the measures taken to destroy Iran’s economy. Zarate explained that this IS a war: measure to destroy the economic health of a nation are acts of war.

    Callers to the Rehm program expressed deep displeasure with the measures the US Treasury is taking. One caller said, “If someone tried to cripple my city by embargoing its economy, I would be very angry. I would want to retaliate in some way.”

    Starving people to death is not trivial (!!). It kills people — children, old women like me — they die when they cannot get enough food to eat or medicine, because another entity is waging war on their economy.

    That NSDAP responded to the Jewish declaration of war through “laws and decrees” that discriminated against Jews seems to be to be remarkably restrained. (nb. Zarate said that the authority under which his office — the “guerillas in grey suits” — conducted economic war against “rogue states” like Iran is from an executive order signed by George Bush. It is not an act of the US Congress but the decree of one man.)

    – – –

    Your answer is remarkable:

    You wrote: “Nazis perpetrated many horrible things!”

    WHEN did they “perpetrate many horrible things”?

    BEFORE 1933, when Judea declared war on Germany?

    You wrote: “German economic burden was not an excuse for the aggressive policies undertook by the Germans. Many of great nations, under severe economic burden, have resorted to the practice of “inventing” enemies larger than life! The enemies may be real, but their potency is far from the myth often propagated.”

    The banner headlines in the London Express were not mythical, they were real.

    Edwin Black writes in “The Transfer Agreement” that neighboring armies were preparing to attack Germany while Germany was still weakened from the starvation-deaths of 800,000 German civilians during the war, and more starvation as a result of hyperinflation during Weimar. Something like what US did to Iraq in the 1990s — soften them up for the kill — causing the deaths of a million Iraqis, 500,000 of them children.

    You wrote: “Of course, analogies are often less than perfect, yet the coincidence of militarism, building mythical scale enemies, and suppression of rights at home are parallels that are too hard to ignore.”

    I don’t know what that means.

    But if it’s parallels you’re looking for, I see parallels in the sanctions imposed on Iraq by the Bush Senior and Junior admins; the sanctions imposed on Iran by AIPAC beginning in 1995 and tightened every year: they are acts of war, from which innocent people die. They are contrary to international law. Germany was the VICTIM, not the perpetrator, of such actions between 1933 and 1941, just as Iran is the victim of illegal — or “semilegal” — Bush signed an executive order! — actions intended to destroy its economic life.

    That a given state may or may not have the economic vitality to withstand an attack of economic war is beside the point: I may be strong enough to survive being shot in the kidney, but that does not legitimate the act of the person who shot me.

  293. Sineva says:

    James Canning says:
    September 16, 2013 at 6:09 pm
    “I think Iran would be wise to close Fordo, to make clear it has no intention whatever of trying to build nukes. None.”
    Back to your old appeasement arguments again are we james?,why on earth should iran have to prove anything to the west?
    When the west,including israel,have taken the military options off the table and publicly pledged not to attack irans nuclear program then there might be the option of mothballing fordow,until then it provides a valuable deterrent to any military action

    “Bashar al-Assad should have disposed of Syria’s CW years ago. For his own sake.”
    Now why on earth would assad do that after all the effort required to obtain it,he certainly thought it had some deterrent value,and when you have a neighbor like israel you need all the deterrent you can get and it certainly proved to be an effective tactical weapon when saddam used it against ranian forces and civilians

  294. Sineva says:

    James Canning says:
    September 16, 2013 at 6:04 pm
    Had they stood up to hitler in 38 and forced him to back down it is very likely there would have been no war in 39

    “I do not see it as “appeasement” if Iran makes a deal with P5+1, any more than it was appeasement for Kruschev to make his deal with JFK in Oct. 1962”
    There is a world of difference between a quid pro quo deal where both sides agree and get some of what they want and the unilateral acts of iranian appeasement,such as halting 20% enrichment or shutting fordow,done without any prior agreement in the hope that the us will reciprocate,that you strongly favor

  295. M. Ali says:

    Turkey’s downing of Syria’s helicopter is interesting. It shows that the backers of the rebels, who happen to be strong US allies, are against Obama’s deal.

    On the ground, Iranians seem to be very optimistic.

  296. M. Ali says:

    Three important points in the media:

    1) Turkey downs Syria helicopter

    2) The UN report,
    “The inspectors’ conclusion “confirms the position of those of us who have said the regime is guilty,” French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said.

    U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called the findings “beyond doubt and beyond the pale,” and a clear evidence of a war crime.

    3)UN resolution to be tough, with all three Allied countries using strong language, such as France,

    “Laurent Fabius, the French foreign minister, insisted that there was no contradiction between the disarmament goal and the longer-term diplomatic objective, because removing Mr. Assad’s chemical arsenal would undermine his military position and would eventually smooth the way for his ouster.

    “It will be a weakening of his position,” Mr. Fabius said. “He must understand that there is no military victory.”

  297. BiBiJon says:

    M. Ali says:
    September 17, 2013 at 3:42 am

    Also this:

    Oren, [the outgoing Ambassador to US Michael Oren] in the interview that is to be published in full on Friday, traced the evolution of Israel’s message on Syria during the three weeks of the chemical weapons crisis.

    “The initial message about the Syrian issue was that we always wanted [President] Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren’t backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran,” he said.

    This was the case, he said, even if the other “bad guys” were affiliated to al-Qaida.

    The initial message about the Syrian issue was that we always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren’t backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran. The greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime as the keystone in that arc.

    This was the case, he said, even if the other “bad guys” were affiliated to al-Qaida.


  298. Karl.. says:

    UN meeting coming up, will netanyahu use his looney-tunes-bomb-image again, as last year?

  299. BiBiJon says:

    Iran to US: I can’t see the stove

  300. Rd. says:

    James Canning says:

    “You claim I favor Iran’s handing the “nuclear keys” to the US? Meaning what?”

    There was no talk of fordo, that was just whoring by the western axis.

  301. Jay says:

    Fiorangela says:
    September 16, 2013 at 11:47 pm

    Thank you for unpacking the quoted material for me.

    I will begin by the admission that I am not a historian. I understand how one may interpret these sentences in the way that appears in your post. However, in my view, the complexity of events in Germany, and in the world, during this period makes unpacking the sentences you suggested in your post rather challenging. As you know, these events were taking place against a chaotic backdrop worldwide, including a depression in the US and much of the world. In other words, the dire economic circumstances was not unique to Germany – although, more severe in comparison to the standard the Germans were used to prior to the War.

    A challenging aspect of addressing historical events is the aspect of responsibility. Historical feuds that have gone on for a long time are often paraded as reasons that justify conflict. How far does one have to go back to find an aggressor in Europe. Spaniards? French? Italians? Germans? The basic principle that use of force is only permitted in self-defense is the what makes sense to me. Not pre-emptive war!

    The rise of Hitler to power within the German system could be considered by some to be quasi-legal. The “Enabling Act” and the basis for the first Nazi revolution the ensued is perhaps the most significant example of pseudo or quasi legal Nazi change.

    There is also often the conflation of what was sanctioned officially by the state, and what was allowed to take place while “the state looked the other way”. However, to the victims it mattered little as to whether they were officially sanctioned or not. I see the vast majority of German people the victim of acts by foreign governments, and their own government. However, The German government under Nazi rule bears responsibility for its actions.

    The US government bears responsibility for her actions that brought misery to Iraqis under the sanctions laws and continues to bring misery – several hundred dead a day – to Iraqi people. Actions of the Bush administration, and now the Obama administration were and are pseudo legal. So were the actions of the Nazis. And, as I mentioned, the trajectory toward dictatorial rule often involves an enemy that takes on mythical proportions. However, to me, these are not offsetting each other! Inhumane and pseudo legal suppression of rights, wherever and whenever it takes place, no matter who perpetrates the actions, must be condemned.

  302. fyi says:


    By Mr. Patrick Buchannan:

    [The way I read this, Iranians need to test a couple of nuclear weapons to end all of this once and for all…]

  303. Smith says:

    North Korea starts up the plutonium production reactor after years of being frozen. The reactor had been sealed and been offline with its cooling tower demolished as part of “confidence building measures” in 6 Party Talks (P5+1). It seems North Korea has now officially pulled out of shameful imperial and dehumanizing/demonizing six party talks.

    South Korea responded to this news by allowing immediate flow of industrial aid to North Korea and restarting the Korean Kaesong Industrial Zone and disregarding its own previous sanctions on North.

  304. Smith says:

    fyi says:
    September 17, 2013 at 10:44 am

    Iran will not find peace, respect and prosperity until it becomes a nuclear weapons state. The white man and his sick fantasies can only be deterred by a nuclear weapons arsenal.

  305. James Canning says:


    I take it you regard the Chinese as “white”? China is adamant about Iran not building nukes. Even if you try to pretend otherwise.

  306. James Canning says:


    You should read Gideon Rachman’s column in the Financial Times today. He writes that Obama’s credibility, and that of the US, is greater if the US avoids ill-considered military adventures.

  307. James Canning says:


    Lindsey Graham is an eager stooge of the Israel lobby and a proponent of idiotic levels of “defence” spending by the US.

  308. James Canning says:


    To clarify, do you mean you think Rouhani will offer to suspend enriching to 20, but not to close Fordo?

  309. James Canning says:

    Financial Times leader today calls for acceptance of Iran’s enrichment of uranium to low levels. As part of deal with P5+1.

  310. James Canning says:


    I agree that if Hitler had backed down in 1938, war might not have come in 1939. But reading of Hitler by Chamberlain ,Halifax et al was that no deal at Munich meant certain war with Germany.

    I have argued Iran can obtain off-the-record recompense for suspending enrichment to 20. For the short term.

    You have to keep in mind the great wealth and power of some of Obama’s key supporters, who back Israel “right or wrong”.

  311. James Canning says:

    Steinitz, the Israeli intelligence minister, told the Financial Times that Obama has to make stronger threats of military attack on Iran. He is worried that Rouhani may gain too much influence.

  312. James Canning says:


    Pollack was wrong when he promoted US invasion of Iraq and I think he is wrong in arguing containment may be an option.

  313. James Canning says:


    I think you are quite wrong to believe Fordo serves as a deterrent to any attack by the US.

  314. Fiorangela says:

    Jay says: September 17, 2013 at 10:40 am

    Jay, Thank you for you thoughtful comment.

    I would very much like to continue the conversation, but my government looks askance at any challenge to the received narrative http slash slash www dot state dot gov/j/drl/rls/fs/2010/122352 dot htm.

    Since this is not my forum, and because I tremendously admire the forum’s hosts and the work that they do, I will not presume to write things that might be interpreted in a harmful manner.

    Nevertheless, I think the topic demands much more exploration; it is foundational to foreign policy for the past century.

    From time to time I have posted some of my own research/thinking on various blogs that I’ve started, but I’m so bad at maintaining a blog that I cannot even remember where one of them is. This item is related to the topic at hand; it was composed in reaction to a speech by Omar Barghouti

  315. Karl.. says:


    Lindsey Graham share your views on Iran so who is the “idiot”?

    By the way, could you please reply to these questions?!

  316. James Canning says:


    Lindsey Graham DOES NOT “share my views” on Iran.

  317. James Canning says:


    How many stories have been linked on this site, regarding Prince Bandar bin Sultan’s efforts to overthrow the gov’t of Syria? You have not seen them? How many stories have been posted on this site, about how overthrow of Syrian gov’t is intended as a way to weaken Iran? You have not seen them?

    China is insistent that Iran not build nukes, and China generally prefers to have Russia speak for both countries on the nuclear issue.

  318. Jay says:

    Fiorangela says:
    September 17, 2013 at 1:52 pm


    thank you for taking the time to pursue the question with me. It is indeed a worthy conversation!

  319. Smith says:

    Iran’s foreign ministry spokesperson explaining about the letters exchanged between Obama and Rouhani. She also pointed out that as per American habit and tradition, Obama’s letter was threatening in tone and content:

  320. James Canning says:


    Yes, the Israel lobby demands the threatening tone. Realities of American politics, sadly.

  321. Karl.. says:

    September 17, 2013 at 3:33 pm

    Thats what you are saying too, that Iran must follow demands by Obama or face consequences. Stop projecting!

  322. James Canning says:


    I say that Iran must make a deal with the P5+1, even if only a partial deal, and even if only implied to some degree. This is NOT what Lindsey Graham argues.

  323. James Canning says:


    Yes, I do say that if Iran fails to make a deal with P5+1, of some sort, there will be more sanctions. You doubt this?

  324. Karl.. says:

    September 17, 2013 at 4:32 pm

    Great, you dont even understand that you just made a case in point-argument that US threatening tone is just fine. Apparently you also believe the sanctions are legal!

  325. James Canning says:

    “The P5+1 countries need to offer a deal to help Rouhani’s administration domestically. . . ”

    – – M Hasem Pesaran Sept 17 (in the Guardian)

  326. James Canning says:


    I do not approve of a threatening tone in US communications with Iran. Full stop. I also think the sanctions are counterproductive.

  327. James Canning says:


    I take it you think there will be more sanctions if a deal is not made.

  328. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    September 17, 2013 at 4:48 pm

    They won’t.

  329. Smith says:

    fyi says:
    September 17, 2013 at 5:03 pm

    Do you think they would offer Iran to have access to Iranian property, the Eurodif uranium enrichment company so that Iran could get its enriched uranium from that Iranian owned company situated in France? And also give Iran all the enriched uranium produced by this Iranian owned company and denied to Iran in the past 35 years?

    Do you think they will ever give back to Iran all the uranium they have stolen from Iranian nation at the Iranian owned Rossing uranium mine and then give Iran access to its property in Rossing uranium mine?

    35 years is a long time.

  330. Smith says:

    US to give away the around one billion dollar Iran owned building in New York to “terrorism victims”. What about Iranian victims of chemical weapons given to Saddam by US?

  331. fyi says:

    Smith says:
    September 17, 2013 at 5:54 pm

    No they won’t; there will be no such cooperation possible between EU and Iran; that which obtained for 200 years is now burnt and gone.

    EU did nothing less than trying to destroy the Islamic Republic of Iran via Economic Siege Warfare – together with the United States.

    This war is continuing.

    Before the events subsequent to August 21, 2013; there was negotiating space with the P5+1 and Iran for some sort of deal – albeit small and devoid of strategic significance – in 2014.

    In my opinion, that negotiating space between Regime Change on one extreme and a nuclear-armed Iran no longer exists.

    Even though the leaders and planners of US have been prevented in starting a war against Syria, they are have succeeded in destroying that negotiating space.

    Since American planners are evidently not prepared to for War with Iran nor for negotiate strategically with Iran; they will have to rely on containment – Economic Siege War, Aggressive Force posture in the Persian Gulf, and assorted high-tech or low-tech intelligence missions inside Iran.

  332. Fiorangela says:

    Smith says:
    September 17, 2013 at 6:04 pm

    does that mean that the Persian Tiles in custody of University of Chicago that an Israeli=American family sought to have auctioned off to pay their claim, will now be safe from culture-theft?

  333. Fiorangela says:

    Smith says:
    September 17, 2013 at 6:04 pm

    It’s becoming an embarrassment to be an American.

    Like having to admit that your mother is an axe-murderer and your father is a cat burglar, and that is how they pay for the braces on your teeth and the 73″ flat screen.

  334. James Canning says:


    You think the EU is “trying to destroy the Islamic Republic of Iran”? I very much doubt that. Yes, some powerful people try to cause the EU to inflict damage on Iranian economy etc etc. But the EU is not trying to “destroy” Iran. Silly notion, really.

  335. James Canning says:


    We agree P5+1 need to offer Iran a deal that helps Rouhani within Iran. We’ll see what happens. We klnow a number of very rich and powerful Jews, and others, in the US, will try to prevent it.

  336. fyi says:

    James Canning says:
    September 17, 2013 at 7:53 pm

    I do not think it, I know it.

    The only thing that saved Iran was the unraveling of their dominant position in finance – subsequent to the crash of 2008 – in 2011.

    US & EU exercised the same type of Siege-in-kind against Iraq – they would not even let Iraq by equipment for their sewage treatment plants; forcing the Iraqi to wallow in their excrement and contributing to the deaths of thousands.

    In Iran, their war was supposed to lead to hyper-inflation, the stopping of motorized transport Iran due to shortages of fuels, tires, spare parts, reduction or elimination of Iranian metals industries, destruction of Iranian capacity to manufacture medicine, evisceration of process industries, harm to the defense industries etc.

    While they succeeded in wounding Iran, they did not succeed in reprising the Iraq experience in Iran.

    On a side note:

    Both Iran and Iraq were harmed gravely by United Kingdom in the 20-th century.

  337. BiBiJon says:

    masoud says:
    September 17, 2013 at 8:26 pm

    that video at the end says “paid for by koch industries”

  338. Empty says:

    James Canning,

    RE: “But the EU is not trying to “destroy” Iran. Silly notion, really.”

    Very Silly notion indeed. You tell them, James. It’s quite obvious that EU is not trying to destroy Iran and it is only interested in destroying the Iranians. If only there were some sort of a bio-bomb that could vaporize the Iranians but leave all of Iran’s infrastructure and resources intact…..don’t give up hope, James.

  339. Jay says:

    Two news stories “side-by-side”… What is wrong with this juxtaposition?

    BNA 02 : 33 PM – 15/09/2013
    UK Ambassador praises the role of Bahrain and RCO in humanitarian and relief assistance

    RT September 17, 2013 19:53
    HRW evidence of Bahraini child protesters abused, threatened with rape and electrocution ‘only tip of iceberg’

  340. Sineva says:

    James Canning says:
    September 17, 2013 at 1:44 pm
    Then why are they so keen to have it shut down then?,it cant be because of 20% enrichment that can be easily halted,it is because they cannot guarantee that they could destroy it in any osirak style sneak attack,it effectively puts irans nuclear program beyond their reach,it also provides the possibility of an iranian bomb should the political decision be made,all in all fordo provides a powerful deterrent to any sneak attacks on irans nuclear infrastructure,because if you cannot destroy fordow you cannot destroy irans nuclear program,and any attack would further run the risk of providing iran with all the excuse it would need to leave the npt or go even further than that ie renounce the fatwa

  341. Karl.. says:


    I take it that you and Lindsey Graham have the same views, he also support a threatening tone of sanctions if Iran dont follow deamnds by the US.

  342. Karl.. says:

    it really seems netanyahu will repeat the bomb-image spectacle at the UN next week..

  343. Bussed-in Basiji says:

    The US/EU don’t want to destroy Iran so long as they can control it- it’s human and natural resources. Otherwise they want to destroy it.

    In this context the Europeans/UK have nobody but themselves to blame for destroying 150+ years of economic relations with Iran in the last 20-30 years. Complete stupidity and servility to the US/Israel on the part of 2 generations of European “politicians” on an issue of national interests for Europeans.

    In this case “strategic denial” does not mean denying Iranian human and natural resources to Russia/China/India.

    It means denying them to the Iranians themselves so they cannot build a politically, economically and militarily powerful nation-state.

    With all this, Iran is already the 15-17th largest economy (depending on how you calculate), to ruheshoon.

    SL said yesterday to Sepah commanders that there is no doubt that Iran will be a politically, economically and militarily powerful nation in the future it only depends on yourselves how quickly we get there. He said if we work hard we will get there sooner and if we are lazy and distracted by minor issues we will get there later.

  344. Karl.. says:

    Just great, when iranian president comes to the US, obama reject meeting and instead invite netanyahu…

  345. fyi says:

    Mrs. Nahid:

    In regards to your question about a strong rebel force in Jordan:

  346. Nahid says:

    Thanks dear fyi. Indeed good news.
    miss Nahid

  347. James Canning says:

    More rubbish from editors at the Wall Street Journal today: “Obama goes to war”.
    Quote: “Assad and Putin have concluded that Obama is no longer a President whose words can be taken seriously.” Because Obama did not launch a foolish attack on Syria.

  348. James Canning says:


    The Financial Times today says William Hague likely will meet with Rouhani in New York. Rouhani can communicate with Obama through Hague as an intermediary.

  349. k_w says:

    Can anyone tell me who it was that wrote Obama’s “red line” speech?


  350. James Canning says:


    I have said numerous times I do not support the sanctions. BUT I would prefer to see sanctions rather than a US attack on Iran. You would prefer the US attack?

  351. James Canning says:


    I prefer that Syria get rid of its CW and avoid a US attack. Your position?

  352. James Canning says:


    I think one would be foolish indeed to believe the US could not work out a way to destroy the Fordo site. Yes, Israel very likely couuld not accomplish this.

  353. James Canning says:


    You argue that Iran benefits from threatening to build nukes. Even while Khamenei once again says Iran strongly opposes nukes. I think the posture you advocate is ill-advised.

  354. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    September 18, 2013 at 1:15 pm

    The United States will attack Iran, one way or another, under this or that pretext, when her leaders believe that the opportune time has presented itself.

    The events since August 21, 2013 no longer leave any ambiguity on that regard.

    Mr. Khamenei, perhaps under pressure by delusional Iranians who think an accommodation with US is possible, has agreed to more flexibility in nuclear negogiations.

    The Axis Powers position has not changed at all.

    Once again, a number of mercurial Iranian leaders must be disabused of their fantasy notions.

    Since we can conclude now that Iran will be attacked by the United States – regardless of what she does – it followes that her planners must prepare Iran for war.

    The accession of Syria to CWT was only a pause.

    Until there is a real regime change in Washington, Iran remains under threat of war.

    And you can see what Axis Powers will bring in if they succeed:

    destruction and chaos everywhere except the oil sector – look no further than in Libya and in Iraq.

  355. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    September 18, 2013 at 1:24 pm

    I think that Iran will leave NPT once this latest negogiation session ends in another failure.

    Mr. Khamenei must demonstrate to both domestic and foreign audiences that Axis Powers are not interested in a reasonable deal with Iran.

    Once that is accomplished, Iran can proceed to leave NPT sometime in 2014.

  356. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    September 18, 2013 at 1:08 pm

    Iran does not need UK or anyone else to be intermediaries.

    US and Iran know each others’ positions.

    What was not known, but has become known now, was the real intentions of the United State and EU.

    Thank God that there is now no ambiguity left since August 21-th of this year.

  357. Karl.. says:


    Laughable, so its either illegal sanctions or illegal wars? You are simply too much…

  358. James Canning says:


    What are Obama’s intentions, in your view? Do you agree he was prepared to allow a quiet victory by Syrian gov’t in the civil war, prior to Aug 21?

    Iran very much needs intermediaries. Your comments make this fact clear.

  359. James Canning says:


    Tell me: do you think Obama would allow Iran to build nukes? Yes or no.

  360. James Canning says:


    If you want to guarantee a US blockade of Iranian oil exports by sea, a good way to accomplish this would be for Iran to announce its intent to leave NPT.

  361. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    September 18, 2013 at 1:57 pm

    I do not believe what you state regarding the state of Mr. Obama’s mind.

    He, Mr. Cameroon, and Mr. Hollander were clearly waiting for the Saudi-manufactured incident to pounce.

    Just like Japanese-manufactured incident: Mukden Incident in China.

    Reluctantly, I have come to agree with the position of Mr. Richard Steven Hack as to Axis Powers 3-step strategy:

    1- Destroy the Ba’ath State in Syria
    2- Destroy Hezbollah
    3- Destroy Islamic Iran

    The events since 08/21/2013 establishes the soundness of Mr. Mr. Richard Steven Hack ‘s prognostications if not their timeline.

    What has delayed the implantation of that strategy was the English people defeating it in the Commons, followed by Mr. Putin’s deft diplomacy, and followed by almost certain defeat in US Congress of Mr. Obama’s war in Syria.

    From this point onward, Iranians’ choices are completely limited to such tactical measures that could prepare them for coming war with US – under Mr. Obama or under his successor or the successor of that successor.

    As for blockade of Iranian ports; I think you should take the statements of the Iranian leaders very seriously when they have repeatedly stated that if Iran cannot export oil, no one could.

    Now, attempt at blockade is a good way of starting war – it might make more sense for Iran to precipitate a war when Axis Powers are not yet ready for it rather than wait until they are.

  362. Karl.. says:


    You are simply too much…

    Its like asking: “do you think Hitler would allow jews to live in Germany? Yes or no.”

    Wow James, following what you are saying you would justify genocide.

  363. James Canning says:


    You claim that for Iran to stop enriching to 20 is equivalent to “genocide”? Amazing.

  364. James Canning says:


    Do we know that the Aug 21 event was caused by the insurgents?

    Was it a rogue action by a Syrian commander?

    You are suggesting the Syrian officer who ordered the attack was working for the Saudis?

    I think you clearly do not understand Obama’s own thinking on these matters.

  365. James Canning says:


    China will not view favorably an effort by Iran to stop oil exports from the Persian Gulf. Threatening China surely is not good strategy for Iran.

  366. Rd. says:

    fyi says:

    “What has delayed the implantation of that strategy was the English people defeating it in the Commons”

    can you elaborate how we got to that point? English just woke up and decide to put aside their waring? And their subordination to US? Are you now suggesting they are independent in policy making decisions?

  367. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    September 18, 2013 at 3:17 pm

    I am looking at the events and find it a useless exercise to try to phatom the mind of a man who was elected on the Audacity of Hope and Peace and demonstrated to be anything but.

    As for China, Korea, India and others – if they are concerned about access to reliable energy from the Persian Gulf; they need to take it up with the United States and EU.

    Axis Powers have demonstrated that they are willing to risk denial of energy to China, Korea, Japan, India, Thailand, and others to advance their hare-brained schemes.

    Iranians have no recourse; they have to make the costs of war against them as high as possible.

    When US & EU attack Iran, China will do nothing.

  368. fyi says:

    Rd. says:

    September 18, 2013 at 3:30 pm

    I think the English people have been opposed to UK government’s Syrian policy acorss the political spectrum; Left, Right, and Center have been opposed.

    I could see that in the comments sections of various news papers online; in the Independent, the Guardian, and even in the Times.

    One comment was something like (paraphrasng):”Why are we supporting the same terrorists in Syria whom we are fighting in Mali?”

    Mr. Cameron had no reply.

    He could not say:

    “Becuase when we lied to you and took you to war to destroy the Ba’ath State in Iraq, Iranains – whom we had harmed greatly in 1953 and onwards – had their power tremendously enhanced and we cannot tolerate that enhancement of power.
    We cannot allow them to have strategic control over so much oil that we used to have as leverage against others such as Russia and China.

    Thus we need to go destroy Syria, and then Hezbollah and then Iran so that we can recover our status quo anter of 1979 in that part of the world.

    Otherwise, we would be a dminished state and a normal country and after a 100 years or so have to beging again to earn our own living.”

  369. BiBiJon says:

    fyi says:
    September 18, 2013 at 2:12 pm

    Nothing against RSH, but it is plausible that Obama (and CIA/Pentagon) were not completely on board with the others in the anti-Assad coalition.

    Recall when Hague and Fabius were chomping at the bit for war, prior to the British Parliament’s no vote, Obama seemed to only want to go along so far: very “targeted,” “narrow,” “2 days,” strikes as punishment for chemical weapons use.

    Similarly, earlier in the year, allegations of CW use by Hague and Fabius were treated with a skeptical Obama casting about with things like “uncertain chain of custody.”

    Next few weeks has the potential for:

    a) definitive proof facing that the August 21st was a false flag, and Obama doing an Eisenhower with UK, France and Israel.

    b) A grand bargain with Iran

    c) Both a, and b.

  370. Karl.. says:


    Correct your view is that whatever a powerful leader say, that must be the law, whetever this is Obama, Hitler. Shameful!

  371. Rd. says:

    fyi says:

    “I think the English people have been opposed to UK government’s Syrian policy acorss the political spectrum; Left, Right, and Center have been opposed.”

    to presume that because ‘the people’ did not want war, the brits backed out, does not seem to hold water.. we need to explore what other reason forced the change in behavior at the 11th hour..

    so you no longer prescribe to the following statement? [presume you would replace Iran with Syria]

    fyi says:
    September 7, 2013 at 11:37 pm
    “As for UK and Germany not wanting war against Iran; they have no say in that.
    US does not need the approval of his Barons in that regard.”

  372. fyi says:

    Rd. says:

    September 18, 2013 at 4:07 pm

    When I made that remark, I meant that US can start a war without needing approval of her Barons – she does not need their forces to wage a war.

    Politically, and in the light of unpopularity of war in US, US leaders needed as many Barons to join the coalition-of-the-willing as possible.

  373. fyi says:

    BiBiJon says:

    September 18, 2013 at 3:47 pm

    Neither a nor b.

    The fact of the matter is the joint Arab-Axis Powers project in Syria had failed; a quick victory followed by another war against Hezbollah to be followed by a bombing and crippling of Iran.

    Axis Powers are not ripe for a Grand Bargain with Iran.

    You have been consistently wrong in your expectations and this time is not any different.

    At any rate, Mr. Obama does not have the scope for doing so; too much has happened and including events since 08/21/2013.

    [A 1000 Mulsims were killed by security forces in Egypt and nary a word of protest came out of Mr. Cameron, Mr. Obama, or Mr. Hollander.]

  374. Rd. says:

    fyi says:

    “Politically, and in the light of unpopularity of war in US, US leaders needed as many Barons to join the coalition-of-the-willing as possible.”

    The barons and the arab clients had no objection to the war. In fact they were promoting it. As far as the public, or the war being UN-popular, the 03 Iraq war was also UN-popular. In fact there were mass demonstrations in US, UK and else where. That did not stop the war party. No mass demonstration this time, as far as I know????

    I see very little evidence the public in US has much influence in political decision making, both internal and foreign. Thats why there is MSM and all the talking heads to form opinion. Your justification seems UN-reasonable.

  375. BiBiJon says:

    fyi says:
    September 18, 2013 at 4:37 pm

    I see the ‘axis powers’ disintegrating long before any of their anti-Iran schemes come to fruition. Already the lines in the sand for WW-III have been drawn around Syria.

    It is not a small thing that Russia firmly and repeatedly attest

  376. BiBiJon says:


    the CW was a false flag provocation.

  377. fyi says:

    Rd. says:

    September 18, 2013 at 4:51 pm

    No, in US at 2003 very many people were willing to give credence to US Governments lies.

    Additionally, US had already fough one war against Iraq already; the population was not disposed to doubt the government’s case.

    That is no longer the case.

    Furthermore, in 2003 Americans were flush with money; that is no longer the case.

    In many parts of the United States, thunderstorm cause widespread blackouts.

    When I stated that US needs a surge domestically, I had meant it.

    And Americans know that too.

    But, I also think US war against Iran, due to the hatred of Middle Aemrica for both Islam & Iran, would be popular – certainly initially.

    After all, the late mr. Khomeini was the religious leader who questioned the (Moral) Exceptionalism of US before anyone else did – going against the Americans’ self-image as the God’s Own Country – thus enraging them to no end, specially coming from a religious man.

  378. fyi says:

    BiBiJon says:

    September 18, 2013 at 4:59 pm

    Axis Powers will not disintegrate as there is no alternative to the current King to the Barons.

    No Baron is setting himself up as a challenger and the King is the only venue that the Barons have for the hope of exercising any strategic power in the world.

    So they will indulge the King – even during his periods of derangement – just like the Commons and the Lords indulged George III.

  379. James Canning says:


    Your belief that “middle America” would welcome a US attack on Iran because it “hates” Iran, is simply silly. In my view. Most Americans cannot find Iran on a map of the world. Or even on a map of Asia.

  380. James Canning says:

    Interesting piece in The Times (London) Sept 2: “Made in Moscow and living it up in London: why ambitious young Russians keep coming”. The writer, Vanora Bennett, reports that up to 300,000 Russians now live in London. Many of them are rich.

  381. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    September 18, 2013 at 5:37 pm

    You best get out of your conccon in San Francisco and see USA for yourself.

    You are seriously delusional about the United States’ vast under-populated heartland.

  382. James Canning says:


    I assert that whatever Obama says “must be the law”? Preposterous. In fact, I prefer what Putin says about what to do or not do in the Middle East, to what Obama says.

  383. James Canning says:


    Martin Dempsey continues to be very sceptical about an American attack on Syria. He of course is Obama’s top general.

  384. James Canning says:


    I do not think you have any understanding whatever of David Cameron’s thinking about Syria.

    But yes, why should Britain or the US help al-Qaeda take power in Syria?

    Are you sorry about Morsi’s overthrow? He of course supported the overthrow of Assad.

  385. James Canning says:


    Cameron was very much influenced by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE. Countries concerned about war in the Gulf due to Iran’s disputed nuclear programme.

  386. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    September 18, 2013 at 5:51 pm

    Well, why don’t you explain to all of us the minds of Mr. Obama and Mr. Cameron as you understand them.

    Please take the time to write 2 coherent paragraphs – I am not too old to read and learn and revise my views.

    As for Mr. Mursi – I found him personally contemptible; the worst case of a wily and cunning peasant promoted way beyond his own abilities and education.

    I found him, his government, and his treatment of Iran particularly offensive as well as foolish.

    And then you had him following the Saudi line in Syria – opposing Iran’s position – I guess he cared more about Ikhwan-Salafi victory than stoppoing the carnage.

    And then you had him essentially endorsing the murder of the Shia in Egypt; compleletly unacceptable.

    Yes, I was gravely disappointed in Mr. Mursi and the Ikhwan – having come to tghe conclusion that they deserve to live in political wilderness until they can formulate a workable systemt of government and politics.

    But my largest disappointment was with the People of Egypt that demonstrated – just like the Iranian people did during 1945-1953 – that they are not ready for representative government and the ballot-box.

  387. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    September 18, 2013 at 5:53 pm

    Then he was a fool.

    Al Saud:

    “We got that Black man and that White man to carry out our desires in Syria; the fools.”

  388. James Canning says:


    You think David Cameron should have told Saudi Arabia, UAE and Qatar that there was no danger of war in the Gulf, due to Iran’s nuclear programme?

    Or, that Cameron should have told them overthrowing Bashar al-Assad was a bad idea?

  389. James Canning says:


    My understanding is that certain powerful Gulf Arabs came to che conclusion Iran would in effect bring war to the Gulf, and these powerful Gulf Arabs decided that the unrest in Syria offered a chance to take out Syrian gov’t before any war came to the Gulf. And they asked Cameron to help them. Situation in Lebanon was also a factor, for some of these powerful Gulf Arabs.

    Obama has been trying to avoid getting drawn into the Syrian civil war. Aug 21 CW event altered the equation.

  390. James Canning says:


    Additionally, Cameron appears to have been influenced by some of his advisers who are close to Israel.

  391. Smith says:

    fyi says:
    September 17, 2013 at 7:20 pm

    So sad and incompetent on the part of white man.

    Do you think even if Iran closed down Fordo, the west would remove all the sanctions on Iran?

  392. Smith says:

    Fiorangela says:
    September 17, 2013 at 7:44 pm

    It’s actually worse than that. The amount of hatred, sectarianism and genocide of multi-generational magnitude being generated in the world in order to serve the fantasy of the white man, is unprecedented in history. Take the example of Pakistan. US with Saudis as their allies planted the seeds of wahabism in that country in 1980’s and now that state is dying from within. Today they are doing the same in Turkey through their locally implanted device Erdogan much like they used General Zia in Pakistan. In 10 years time, things are going to start getting blown up in Turkey. All to implement a fantasy.

  393. Smith says:

    VOA is an official propaganda outlet but a guest Russian expert on the program claims that the Syrian chemical weapon deal was actually done by Iran behind the scenes and then Iran gave Russia to propose it to the world since US would have never accepted something that comes out of Iran:

  394. Rehmat says:

    Clare Short, former British MP and secretary of state for International Development has claimed on her blog that the US-lead war on Syria has nothing to do with “achieving democracy and dignity but to overthrow the regime in order to weaken Iran and Hizbullah.”

    “It is deeply hypocritical of Obama, Cameron and the rest to demand action on the use of chemical weapons because it is a breach of international law when they will take no action as Israel continues to breach international law in its behaviour in the occupied territories. On this we have the 2004 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, the highest authority in the international system on international law, which makes absolutely clear that Israel is in grave breach of international law in the occupied territories. The US and the UK constantly denounce Russia for making impossible Security Council authorised military action against Syria when the US, almost always supported by the UK, constantly blocks any action whatsoever to try to restrain Israel’s breaches of international law in the occupied territories,” said Short.

  395. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    September 18, 2013 at 6:33 pm

    I think there was never any danger of war in the Persian Gulf except one started by the Axis Powers.

  396. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    September 18, 2013 at 6:38 pm

    They Mr. Cameron was playing into a game beyond his cognitive as well as political skills.

    For Saudi Arabia’s objective is nothing but the transformation of entire world of Islam into Hanbali school – and UK, US, and other EU leaders were evidently either suckered into supporting that position out of ignorance or out of maclie for Iran.

    Well, that project has failed and let us see how the friends of Axis Powers deal with its very negative ramifications.

  397. fyi says:

    Smith says:

    September 18, 2013 at 7:20 pm

    Certainly not.

    I believe Axis Powers will do the same thing that US & Israel did in their dealings with Palestinians – try to leverage their strategic asymmetry to extract any and all concessions that they can out of Iran.

    It is clear to me that their expectation is that Iran, under the duress of sanctions, is ready for making concessions.

    The Axis Powers leaders and planners estimate that need not move from their positions and – essentially – have got Iran by the proverbial testicles.

    Nothing can be further from the reality of the situation; Iranian leaders are going in to demonstrate to their domestic audiences that, in fact, there is no acceptable deal for Iran with the Axis Powers.

    All of these positive signals etc. will be over before December.

  398. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Syria’s enemies won’t give up on war, Pepe Escobar says


    Escobar said that the United States, France and Britain “want a Chapter 7 UN Security Council resolution which has the inbuilt possibility of launching a war against Syria in case of noncompliance, and they do not specify what kind of noncompliance would that be.”

    “In fact, they want… an Iraqi-style Chapter 7 inbuilt possibility of an attack resolution. It won’t pass the UN Security Council. We already know that. Russia and China will veto it, and the Americans, the French and the British, they know it. So probably, it is going to be a two-step resolution,” he added.

    “The only possibility to have a resolution now is to have a non-binding resolution. Later on if there is a false-flag, if the inspectors are attacked by the rebels, for instance, sniper fire, it already happened before, then everybody goes back to the UN Security Council and probably there will be a second resolution,” Escobar noted.

    These people who want war, they won’t give up. It is simple as that,” Escobar concluded.

    End Quote

    Note: I just discovered that Twitter won’t let me tweet a link to Press TV because according to Twitter it’s a “spammy URL”! So clearly Twitter has been pressured not to censor Press TV.

  399. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Iran Will Never Develop Nuclear Weapons – Rouhani


    Echoing what Iran’s supreme leader have said before, Rouhani told NBC that his country would “never develop nuclear weapons” under any circumstances

    End Quote

    So much for Smith and the rest of the warmongers here…

  400. Richard Steven Hack says:

    And just so it’s reinforced…


    Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei today reiterated his opposition to nuclear weapons.

    “We are against nuclear weapons not because of the US or other countries, but because of our beliefs,” Khamenei said. “And when we say no one should have nuclear weapons, we definitely do not pursue it ourselves either.” (IRIB/Press TV, 17 September)

    End Quote

    Iran Not After Nuclear Weapons – Khamenei

  401. Sineva says:

    James Canning says:
    September 18, 2013 at 1:24 pm
    Iran has not threatened to build nukes but the real possibility that it could,and the inability of the us/israel to guarantee to be able to destroy irans nuclear facilities gives iran an increasingly credible japan option,do you really think that the west would be so stupid as to take the risk that a failed attack would provide iran with the excuse to not only leave the npt but begin a crash bomb program?,I dont think even the west would be that stupid but sadly when it comes to the middle east the west and stupidity often go hand in hand,personally I think irans conventional retaliatory capabilities are enough to make the us/israel think twice,but fordow by its very existence only increases that deterrent
    James Canning says:
    September 18, 2013 at 1:19 pm
    Short of using nuclear weapons,their only other options are unfeasibly large conventional bombs like the moab and even if they can deliver them they would be very vulnerable to irans air defenses and countermeasures,in the end it will always be easier for iran to bury them deeper than it will be for the us to attempt to destroy them

  402. Photi says:

    Rouhani, Like Countless Iranian Officials Before Him, Affirms: Iran Will Never Seek Nuclear Weapons

  403. Sineva says:

    James Canning says:
    September 18, 2013 at 3:19 pm
    China would no doubt take a very dim view of any unilateral american blockade of one of its main energy suppliers,personally I think the idea of a blockade is far fetched,the us considered trying it with the dprk but quickly realized how dangerous and stupid it would be,in the case of iran that effectively controls the transit of almost all the oil in the middle east the economic results alone would potentially be catastrophic never mind the military risks,suppose the chinese decide to escort their tankers with warships and challenge the blockade do you think the us navy would fire on them?

  404. Sineva says:

    James Canning says:
    September 18, 2013 at 6:38 pm
    It would be the west using the excuse of iran who would bring war to the middle east not iran,the only war mongers here are the west

  405. Karl.. says:


    About your comment to Smith.
    How are one a warmonger for saying that Iran should have the equal defense as other powerful states? The warmongering against Iran for the past 10 years have showed Iran’s deterrence obviously isnt enough.

  406. nico says:


    It seems we will get the answer about the fascist axis policy regarding Iran in the next few days.
    Rohani has been fully empowered to negotiate the issue with flexibility and is ready to meet Obama in the sidelines of the UNGA.

    Obama has been prudent and did not confirm that but the meeting with Nyahoo.
    Curious while the US called for direct contact through Bidden voice before the Iranian presidential election few months ago.

    If Obama refuse to meet Rohani, then the picture would be clear enough for everyone to see.

    I agree with you that there will be no meeting.
    The fascist axis will forward escape as they invested to much in Iran demise.
    Thas has always been the end goal of the fascist axis to begin with.

    One needs to recognize that the fascist axis is after supremacy.
    And whatever accomodation of Iran interests by the fascist axis while Iran is a powerfull independent international actor would be a HUGE, albeit invevitable, set back for the fascist axis as defined in their supremacist and civilizational policies. It would signal Iran accession as a world power and the end of the US unilateral moment.
    It would be the end of the fascist axis dominance over the ME and the fragilization of Israel position politically.
    It would leave the western powers to deal with the financial crisis without a usefull excuse for a full fledge global war in order to throw the world political and economical chessboard upside down.
    That is not in the US deeply ingrained criminal mentality.
    Not going to happen without a real physical struggle.

    But who knows for sure ?
    Iran has now enough chips to baragain and save the US face as even a limitation of its nuclear program would leave it with the needed capability for purely civilian application as stated by the SL policy.
    The issue I see is not that much about enrichment but rather the Arak reactor.
    Wait and see.

  407. Karl.. says:

    Only me that found Curry’s interview with Rouhani demeaning and patronizing? She even used the “wipe off” lie!

  408. nico says:

    The real question is what the US has to gain from detente with Iran ?
    Nothing of value from their unilateral perspective.
    The US are rather comfortable with their current position with their client states.
    The contzinment of Iran is fully in place and proxy wars are fought at the fringes if tge shia crescent.
    Again, my take is that there is Zero chance of detente.

    The only option for Iran are to escalate the issue in order to force the US hand.

    My take is that detente in current political circumstances would be a defeat for the fascist axis whatever the form it would take.

    My take is that the Iranian approach is purely tactical as they win in all cases : if the fascist axis accept detente then Iran win by remaining independent and powerfull. If the fascist axis refuse detente then Iran would have its case built for the next step of escalation.

  409. fyi says:

    nico says:

    September 19, 2013 at 8:13 am

    Yes Axis Powers detente with Iran would mean a political defeat for them.

    It might happen but not now; their leaders are really counting on the sanctions to have moved the Iranian leaders.

  410. BiBiJon says:

    fyi says:
    September 19, 2013 at 8:45 am

    Every war has an end. I don’t know how many set backs make a defeat, and how many defeats it takes to concede failure of a stratagem. Once again I may be leaning way in front of my skis, but if after 34 years, all that the two adversaries can claim, is retarding the advance of the other, and when this measly achievement does not justify actual/opportunity costs then the two sides may be amenable to pursue their interests by other means.

  411. Rd. says:

    James Canning says:

    “Your belief that “middle America” would welcome a US attack on Iran because it “hates” Iran, is simply silly. In my view. Most Americans cannot find Iran on a map of the world. Or even on a map of Asia.”

    You are mistaken. It is true that most can not find Iran (E-run) on the map. However, they are well aware of eye-ran, (even though, the don’t know where it is) and ready to shoot you.

  412. Rd. says:

    Smith says:

    “ Syrian chemical weapon deal was actually done by Iran behind the scenes and then Iran gave Russia to propose it to the world since US would have never accepted something that comes out of Iran: “

    I believe that to be the case and disagree with fyi assertions. As fyi has suggested a number of times, IRI has had very clear red lines, that they would defend themselves, no matter what. In that, there is no doubt. However, IRI has also proven to be very pragmatic in their approach. They would not go to war just for the sake of martyring themselves (Taliban murder of IRI diplomats).

    I believe the very likelihood, IRI had drawn the red line on Syrian bombing. The brit parliament hesitated, obama cries congress, so they have every one on board before their own morass hits their faces. IRI provided the pragmatic solution.

    Again, ask a simple question,’Why US has not confronted IRI in direct military engagement for 34 years?’

    I agree with fyi prognosis as well with RSH, others, the intent is there, no question. However, US has been limited to sanctions, terrorism, proxy wars, etc, yet not direct confrontation, why? In the mean time, they have attacked Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan and a host of others.. Both Iraq (1) and Yugoslavia at the time, seemed to have been “much better” armed than Iran was in the 80s, 90s. Correct? Would seem to have been an easier pick, but why not?

    There seems to be reasons as to why US is hesitant in confronting IRI directly. At the same time, IRI proven to be pragmatic while checking US action, they have also, kept pushing US to change.

    Did the murder of Iranian scientists stop? Howcome?

  413. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Syria crisis: West backs down on demand for threat of war in UN resolution

    This puts Obama and Israel back to square one. Even if Syria for some reason fails to complete the destruction of its chemical weapons according to the West’s schedule, the UN Resolution will give no authorization for use of force.

    This puts the US and Israel back to where they were before they started using the chemical weapons ploy to start a war, i.e., with no UN Resolutions available to them and no legal way to start a war that will play internationally.

    This leaves them with only one option I can see: they have to massively escalate the civil war to the point where it clearly is “a threat to regional peace”. And the only way I can see that happening is if Israel ups the ante by more directly attacking Syria, forcing Syria to retaliate and then calling in the US and NATO to help Israel.

    I don’t think any amount of weapons supplied to the insurgents, or intelligence help, or money, will help them put Syria in a position of state failure which would justify a regional threat. It’s doubtful, but possible, that Lebanon might be forced to be more involved if the West pushes Salafist Lebanese groups to attack Hizballah. But such groups are more likely to lose than start another civil war.

    So I think it’s going to have to come down to an escalation by Israel (and perhaps Turkey, possibly prefigured by the recent helicopter shoot down) in order to drum up a plausible “justification” for Obama to resume his war push.

    Of course, once again, if the Syrian insurgents continue to conduct false flag chemical attacks after the Syria chemical weapons agreement is in place, it’s possible that agreement will collapse and give Obama another chance.

    But it seems that Russia has managed to stalemate Obama temporarily.

    This may push back my estimate of when the Syria war will start into next year. But we still have three months – and three months ago we weren’t on the brink of a Syrian war as we were in the last couple weeks. So anything can happen within the space of a week or two.

  414. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Most Reported Deaths in Syria Have Not Been Committed by Assad Forces

  415. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Karl: “How are one a warmonger for saying that Iran should have the equal defense as other powerful states?”

    One is a warmonger for advocating that Iran conduct itself in such a way as to virtually guarantee a war occurring BEFORE Iran can acquire any nuclear weapons. That is not in Iran’s best interests and Iran’s leaders know that and have said so.

    Secondly, Iran will NEVER have an “equal defense” even to match or even deter Israel, let alone the US. Iran’s leaders have said they understand that.

    “The warmongering against Iran for the past 10 years have showed Iran’s deterrence obviously isnt enough.”

    Again, Iran will NEVER have a deterrent powerful enough to deter the United States. It would have to develop a level of deterrence essentially equivalent to China’s – which is to say at least 50-200 intercontinental ballistic missiles (or say 5-10 submarines with several nuke-capable cruise missiles each) capable of reaching at least many of the Eastern Seaboard major cities with city buster nuclear warheads – to be credible. Do you think the US and Israel would ever allow that to happen without attacking first?

    No way. No chance. End of story. Iran will never be a conventional or nuclear military power with sufficient capability to deter the United States, not as long as the US maintains any significant percentage of its current military budget.

    I remind you that Iran is WAY DOWN on the list of highest military budgets in the world:

    List of countries by military expenditures

  416. James Canning says:


    Where on earth do you get the idea the US “attacked Yugoslavia”? Absurd.

  417. James Canning says:


    If you are arguing that, in the event Iran tries to build nukes, the American public will back measures intended to prevent this, I agree with you.

  418. James Canning says:


    I think many if not most of the people in Germany, France, the US, the UK, and Canada, would welcome a deal with Iran even if you see that as a “defeat”.

    Would it have been a “defeat” for the US (and the UK), if George W. Bush had not gone forward with his idiotic invasion of Iraq in 2003?

  419. James Canning says:


    Iran would be much richer AND STRONGER if it did not labor under sanctions due to its disputed nuclear programme. Your contention the sanctions strengthen Iran is not true.

  420. James Canning says:


    Gulf Arabs who back the overthrow of Syrian gov’t, due to concern Iran will bring war to the Gulf, view Iran as in effect potentially bringing about that war. Fine, say the “West” will bring the war. Same result: powerful Gulf Arabs saw opportunity to take out Assad, and pursued it due to concern about Iran’s bringing war to the Gulf.

  421. James Canning says:


    China buys most of its oil from Gulf countries, and most of that buying IS NOT from Iran. Surely you know this.

    China is concerned about blockage of Stratis of Hormuz, but I think China would blame Iran for such blockage.

  422. nico says:

    James Canning says:
    September 19, 2013 at 1:07 pm

    Please avoid adressing me idiotly and with one liners.
    I lost interest in your mental illness and your total inability to articulate coherent thinking with intelligible words.
    Though it was was fun for some time it is becoming tedious.

  423. Karl.. says:


    I think that that thinking will lead to Iran will be attacked one day. All these states (UK, France, US, Israel, Saudiarabia etc) are ruled by force so it doesnt make much sense that Iran should not develop powerful military capabilities. Actually deterrence is working. Iraq, Libya are two examples where war would probably not have come if it wasnt for their disarment.

  424. James Canning says:


    Saddam Hussein and Gaddafi both badly bungled their PR, and brought disaster to themselves. ZERO chance Gaddafi could have built nukes. He said so himself. And he siad nukes are dangerous to the coutnry that has them. Just as Syria’s CW has proven dangerous to Syrian gov’t.

  425. James Canning says:


    And how so you think Iran should “escalate” its confrontation with the US (and other members of P5+1)? Delusional thinking.

  426. nico says:

    “Americans are warmongers, corrupt and given to exploitation [of other nations],” said Secretary-General of Iran’s High Council for Human Rights Mohammad Javad Larijani in a televised interview Wednesday night with Channel 2 of the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB), adding, “We should be described as a country that takes a stand against such attributes.”“Westerners,” he added, Fyi,

    That is proof that Iran leadership is not delusional about the fascist axis.
    The “heroic flexibility” is only tactical.

    “”Americans are warmongers, corrupt and given to exploitation [of other nations],” said Secretary-General of Iran’s High Council for Human Rights Mohammad Javad Larijani in a televised interview Wednesday night with Channel 2 of the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB), adding, “ We should be described as a country that takes a stand against such attributes.”
    “Westerners,” he added, “are hostile to presidents that serve their nation, whether he is [Iran’s former President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad or [incumbent President Hassan] Rouhani.”
    Larijani further emphasized that Iranian diplomats must speak rationally and press their words through.Describing the Western-led imposed sanctions against the Islamic Republic as “unprecedented” and “highway robbery,” he stressed that Iranian diplomats should conduct negotiations in a way that the opposing side could not challenge us.
    “Our negotiations should be justice-centered and brave, and our diplomacy should be sophisticated and based on different techniques,” he added.
    Larijani further emphasized that the Islamic Republic has undermined Western equations in the region and the Syrian resistance is a clear example of that.””

    What is striking in Iranian leadership discourses is the truth carried by their words.
    Those words are always principled and morally unattackable.
    That is true democracy.

    What is striking is the fascist powers continuous lies, double speech. Unprincipled and immoral stances and acts for tribal and racist reasons.
    That is true sign of an undemocratic (sure such podition or undefensibled) oligarchic and satanic leadership.

    The more I get old the more I see Khomeiny a Genius to brand the Anglo satans.

  427. nico says:

    James Canning says:
    September 19, 2013 at 2:26 pm


  428. Rd. says:

    Is this what you would call, crying uncle [sam]??

    “Based on the foregoing, the recent positions of the Obama administration confirm Saudi Arabia’s urgent need to reconsider its understanding of its national security, and thus review its position and role in its alliance with Washington.

    Read more:

  429. nico says:

    Judeo-protestant religions and cultures seen as racist and satanic ?
    Putin seems to think so.

    “Referring to Obama’s speech from the White House on September 10 in which he said the US policy “makes us exceptional,” Putin warned in his op-ed that “It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation.”
    “We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal,” Putin wrote in his article.”

    WOW !
    Putin bluntly insulting the Judeo-protestant as racist all the same UNDER THE GOD NAME !
    Khamenei and Putin same civilizational combat against the beasts ?

    Now everybody can see why the Anglo massively genocided native people all around the world and why they are in a family business with Zionists doing the same in Palestine.

    They are Satan crypto whorshipers all the same.

    And the Idiotic McCain is doubling down.

    “US Senator John McCain has said that he is “more pro-Russian” than the government of President Vladimir Putin which “misrules” the Russian people “today.”In an op-ed published by the Russian news website on Thursday, the Republican Senator from Arizona said, “Russians deserve better than Putin.”
    “I make that claim because I respect your dignity and your right to self-determination. I believe you should live according to the dictates of your conscience, not your government,” McCain said in his op-ed.”

    Sure McCain would have liked to get the ability to kill half the Russian population to get rud of Putin.
    In Irak fashion.

    What a dangerous racist.
    The same mindset as Sharon and Nethanyoooo.

    Yep they are the same satanic beasts.

  430. Sineva says:

    James Canning says:
    September 19, 2013 at 1:10 pm
    It would not be iran that would be starting any war that choice would lay squarely with the west,once again you seek to justify and excuse the actions of the west and its allies.As for the gulf arabs they miscalculated badly..again
    James Canning says:
    September 19, 2013 at 1:13 pm
    The last time I looked china bought substantial quantitys of iranian oil,I do not see the chinese turning a blind eye to any western blockade for the simple fact that any blockade will threaten their energy imports,now who do you think china will blame for initiating such a crisis,not iran thats for sure,tho I think the chances for such a scenario are virtually nil,the damage done to the western economies by the effective removal of over 20% of the worlds oil would be considerable,had the west been confident in such a ploy they would have tried it already and the longer they wait the stronger irans antishipping capabilities become
    James Canning says:
    September 19, 2013 at 1:07 pm
    Iran may have been richer but as far as getting stronger goes they look like they`ve been doing a good job of that despite the sanctions,the sanctions have been a double edged sword both helping and hurting iran and let us not forget that the west has also paid a high price economically as well as staking a great deal politically on iranian capitulation.Once again james you mindlessly repeat the same discredited mantra “if only iran would just appease the west everything would be okay”

  431. James Canning says:


    A blockade of Iranian oil exports by sea would be a last effort to avoid attacking Iran, in the event Iran continued to stockpile enriched uranium, plutonium programme, etc.

    No question, the sanctions against Iran bring heavy costs to many countries.

    If Krushchev in your view did not “appease” the JFK and the US, when he made his deal in October 1962, then Iran would not be “appeasing” the US, or any other country, by suspending enrichment to 20, stooping plutonium programme. etc . Provided somethjing of value was obtained in exchange.

    You appear to argue the Gulf Arabs are quite right to seek to injure Iran by taking out the gov’t of Syria, due to possibility that the West may bring war to the Gulf, due to Iran’s nuclear programme. Fair statement?

  432. James Canning says:


    When I say I think something will likely happen, I am saying what I think will likely happen, even if I personally do not approve of that which I expect to happen.

  433. Sineva says:

    James Canning says:
    September 19, 2013 at 2:24 pm
    No they stupidly thought they could trust the west,as for gaddafis nukes,he did not have the industrial ability to make use of the centrifuge technology that he acquired from the pakistanis,had he gone for a heavy water or gas cooled reactor then he certainly could have obtained them,it simply depends how serious you are about it

  434. James Canning says:


    Interesting piece you linked, by Khaled al-Dakhil. Referring to “Obama’s inclination toward an understanding with Iranians”.

  435. James Canning says:


    Gaddafi was making great strides in increasing business and social ties with European countries. Prior to eruption of the revolt.

    You are mistaken if you think Gaddafi could have build nukes. As in, would have been allowed to build nukes.

  436. Sineva says:

    James Canning says:
    September 19, 2013 at 3:41 pm
    “Provided somethjing of value was obtained in exchange”
    So you no longer favor appeasement then james?,you used to insist that iran should unilaterally halt 20% enrichment and close fordow in exchange for nothing more than the hope the us would perhaps reciprocate

    “You appear to argue the Gulf Arabs are quite right to seek to injure Iran by taking out the gov’t of Syria, due to possibility that the West may bring war to the Gulf, due to Iran’s nuclear programme. Fair statement?”
    Those are your words james and I could not disagree more with that statement
    There is nothing “quite right” about what they are doing,if the arabs truly feared a war the smart thing would be to tell their western allies that attacking iran would be a crazy thing to do all the while loudly proclaiming their neutrality.I think they fear the growing iranian power in the region,that and the arab spring scared them sh!tless,in desperation they thought they could use the cover of the arab spring to attack syria and weaken iran,they no doubt thought assad would go they way of gaddafi…they miscalculated badly,had they been smarter they would have sought an accommodation with iran

    A blockade would be seen for what it was,an act of war

  437. Sakineh Bagoom says:

    “A blockade of Iranian oil exports by sea”

    I am surprised BiBiJon hasn’t gamed THIS one. Well, I’ll give it shot.
    Iran does a counter blockade, as her officials repeatedly stated, if we can’t sell our oil, no one using the PG route can. Straits of Hormuz is officially closed.

    Your move James.

  438. fyi says:

    Sineva says:

    September 19, 2013 at 3:43 pm

    The late Moammar Al Qaddafi ruled in the typical primitive Arab way; oil largess for the tribes for keeping them loyal and, at the same time, keeping the state/government weak.

    So when he died, Libya died with him – just like Iraq and some day Saudi Arabia.

    The most damning thing yiu can say about him is that he did not build structures that could survive him – he kept Libya weak in multiple fronts. You might have seen the videoes of teh anti-aircraft missiles still in storage?

    God forbid that we get a comeptent dictator like the late Joseph Stalin, the late Adolf Hitler, the late Gen. Franco among Muslim polities; we are left with men such as the late Qaddafi, the late Shah of Iran, the late Saddam Hussein, the late Zia Al Haq and assorted others – one worse than the other.

  439. kooshy says:

    ‘”You bet Your Life” This conversation is GTT’s equivalent of “Groucho Marx” show

    Karl – “The warmongering against Iran for the past 10 years have showed Iran’s deterrence obviously isn’t enough.”

    RSH – “Again, Iran will NEVER have a deterrent powerful enough to deter the United States. It would have to develop a level of deterrence essentially equivalent to China’s – which is to say at least 50-200 intercontinental ballistic missiles (or say 5-10 submarines with several nuke-capable cruise missiles each) capable of reaching at least many of the Eastern Seaboard major cities with city buster nuclear warheads – to be credible. Do you think the US and Israel would ever allow that to happen without attacking first?’

    Wow if these two were correct, one wonders what Iran has been doing in these last 35 years. to me it looks like they(Iranians) have done a good job deterring every warmonger westerner pretty well without firing a single shot what more do they need?
    If one tries and want to be honest, one would know no one has yet kicked redneck Yankees where it hurts as well as Iranians have done. It is not that they have reduced or hurt US economically, no that wouldn’t hurt as much as hurt what they did. They have hurt and bloodied the Americans their puddles strategically. Because of Iranian revolution and Iran’s fierce resistance for stabilizing and maintaining her independence, today US is far more strategically venerable than she ever was even after losing Vietnam war, this is totally contributed to Iranian revolution. And that hurts to the tune that only a regime change may ever make US recover the lost lust.

    So if US is been deterred for 35 years by Iran, does this mean Iran has a current level of deterrence to what china had after the people revolution of 1950 plus 35 years which it puts Iran’s current level to China’s 1985.

    Jalal khalegh

  440. Sakineh Bagoom says:

    “but if after 34 years, all that the two adversaries can claim”

    BiBiJon, I take issue with the number 34.
    It’s been at least 60 (some say 62, since 1951 when Mossadeq nationalized the oil) that US has not found some way to hurt Iranians. Noam Chomsky said as much in his recent interview with Democracy Now.
    In the case of UK, well, that enmity goes back to at least, the Anglo–Persian War that lasted between November 1, 1856 and April 4, 1857 when the Brits were trying to protect their Indian flank. And it continued, leading to 1917-1919 famine/genocide killing a third of Iranians.
    On “all wars must end” I am with you, as I just don’t see how status quo can hold barring a major conflagration.

  441. James Canning says:


    You see Adolf Hitler as “competent”? Amazing. He brought total catastrophe to his adopted country. Needlessly. And foolishly. Etc etc etc.

    How many millions of Russians was Joseph Stalin responsible for killing or starving to death?

  442. James Canning says:


    I do agree General Franco did a good job, on the whole. And especially in avoiding getting drawn into the Second World War.

  443. James Canning says:


    Gaddafi should also be noted for eroding or wrecking many governmental structures that existed when he took control of Libya.

  444. James Canning says:


    I would expect many countries to contribute to mine-sweeping in the Straits of Hormuz, if Iran tries to block shipping to and from the Gulf.

  445. James Canning says:


    I think I have made clear Iran should seek to gain a reasonable deal, even if it has to be unstated to some degree. Krushchev kept quiet about JFK’s agreement to remove ICBMs from Turkey. Even though that was a dey element of the deal from Krushchev’s standpoint.

  446. James Canning says:


    It does appear that an over-reaction took place, among certain powerful Gulf Arabs. And those who fostered the civil war in Syria expected the US to intervene within a matter of months.

    But, fear of war in the Gulf was what did so much to bring civil war to Syria.

  447. Sakineh Bagoom says:

    Which one of those countries would be immune to a barrage of missiles James?

  448. James Canning says:


    An Iranian missile strike on multi-national task force trying to keep the Gulf open to shipping would be regarded by China and Russia as reckless. In my view.

  449. fyi says:

    James Canning says:
    September 19, 2013 at 6:52 pm

    The only mistake of the late Adolf Hitler was to attack the Soviet Union; had he not done so, the Third Reich would still be around.

    As for the late Joseph Stalin, without his program of forced collectivization and later his steely will to win the war by feeding the lives of young men into it, Germany would have won the war.

  450. James Canning says:

    Fox News report today: “US allies debate response to seemingly friendlier Iran”

  451. James Canning says:

    Bashar al-Assad told Fox News that Syria’s CW should be shipped to the US for destruction. Assad figured the cost at $1 billion.

  452. fyi says:

    James Canning says:
    September 19, 2013 at 7:04 pm

    In this late date, I think that once again God turned their tricks against them:

    – US/EU position vs. Iran was exposed – regime change by any means necessary

    – An ethno-religious coalition of religious minorities in the Middle East held together and thwarted the Sunni Arab plots.

    – The position of Sunni Arabs in Lebanon disintegrated as Druze and Christians fears of Sunni extremists forced them into the hands of the Shia in that country

    – The Turks and Jordanians now have to contend, for several decades , with millions of refugees that won’t or can’t go back to Syria.

    – Lebanese and Turkish economies did not remain unscathed; the harm to Turkey is going to last for several decades.

    – Iranians came across as those who stood by their allies to the hilt – even when a siege war of economics was being waged against them.

    – Sunni Arabs, just like their Axis Powers allies – have no positive program for the Near East except death and destruction.

    – Israel was exposed to be so isolated that it could not even be included in any discussion of the future of the Near East.

    A few more such turns of events and I should think that the Shia Crescent would be in a pretty good place – God Willing!

  453. Sakineh Bagoom says:

    The crisis is now 20 days old. Not one of the mines has been found. Iran shoots anything moving in the strait. On the third day an oil tanker is sunk in the narrowest lane in the strait blocking any large ships.
    Oil is approaching $200/b.
    Food shortages around the world due to high oil prices. Winter approaching.
    Many countries try to intervene, but Iran says the West brought this on themselves.
    Your move James.

  454. Jay says:

    As I said three days ago: “Closing Fordo is duckspeak!”

    Iran will not close FORDO

    It is optimistic to believe that tried and true techniques of propaganda will be abandoned!

  455. Kathleen says:

    “rejected it overwhelmingly” Indeed

  456. Empty says:

    Major reconstruction plans have already begun in Syria and it appears that several Iranian engineers and companies are front runners in the bids. There is a solid determination to rebuild various war-torn areas very quickly (similar to reconstruction jihad that happened in Iran after the Iraq war)and the security of the “cleaned up” areas (from imported terrorists) are mostly done by local trained Syrian Basijis.

  457. kooshy says:

    Sakineh Bagoom says:
    September 19, 2013 at 9:03 pm


    Anybody has ever been or seen Hormoz up close, would know that if Iran ever wants to close Hormoz indefinitely forever she can, to close Hormoz there is no need for mines, missiles or radar. The large cargo ship passages where the water is deep enough for large ocean liners to pass is only about 2 miles wide and is close to Qeshem island which actually is in Iran’s territorial waters.
    Iran can close the damn thing with WWI artillery if she wants too, all she has to do is check for coordination’s by reconnaissance drones and fast boats, and start shooting at anything moves including at slow seating ducks like the mine sweepers, oil tankers ,cargo ships, air craft carriers etc. Artillery batteries are mobile and can’t be detected easily they don’t need radar and modern ones are accurate enough to hit or scare large objects, they don’t use radar they are mobile and cheap, not worth destroying by million dollar tomahawks. If Iran doesn’t want nothing big can pass through the strait of Hormoz including mine sweepers.

    One would think the southern Persian gulf states can build pipelines to the red sea and ship their oil from safety of waters adjacent to Suez, but the problem is long oil and gas pipelines in unstable countries that the population is against and does not approve the government is more dangerous and less safe and harder to protect and operate then the oil tankers. That is why the Americans didn’t encourage and the KSA did not and has not moved all his oil shipping facilities to read sea.

    Who ever says that Iran can’t close the Hormoz need to get his head examined.

  458. Photi says:

    President Rouhani in the Washington Post today:

    “The unilateral approach, which glorifies brute force and breeds violence, is clearly incapable of solving issues we all face, such as terrorism and extremism. I say all because nobody is immune to extremist-fueled violence, even though it might rage thousands of miles away. Americans woke up to this reality 12 years ago.

    My approach to foreign policy seeks to resolve these issues by addressing their underlying causes. We must work together to end the unhealthy rivalries and interferences that fuel violence and drive us apart. We must also pay attention to the issue of identity as a key driver of tension in, and beyond, the Middle East.”

  459. Sakineh Bagoom says:

    “Who ever says that Iran can’t close the Hormoz need to get his head examined.”
    Kooshy, our very own Gav is so enamored with the idea. Sometimes I think he is so old he thinks her majesty’s ships of yore are still sailing.

  460. nico says:

    “The Federal Reserve has essentially admitted defeat in efforts to reverse quantitative easing. With that, instead of reducing longer-term financial risks and refocusing the economy on a sustainable path, Fed chairman Ben Bernanke will leave as his legacy the US economy just as he found it – fragile and heading for a crash.”

  461. nico says:

    “The United States has lost the respect and the belief of the international community as power gradually diffuses on a global scale. That is one lesson to be learned from US President Barack Obama’s failure to gain followers to attack Syria. Another is the striking influence of grassroots opinion on international policy, not seen since the Vietnam War.”

  462. nico says:

    “Saturday is the official International Day of Peace. Thursday is the opening of high-level nuclear disarmament talks at the United Nations in New York.

    Those two dates set a particularly embarrassing bookend for the US, which is planning a pair of test launches for nuclear-capable Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) during the same period.

  463. Sineva says:

    fyi says:
    September 19, 2013 at 7:56 pm
    I agree

  464. BiBiJon says:

    Dear Mr. Rouhani:

    Be aware that some of your western interlocutors only understand force. When officials in government or pundits in MSM harp about how the threat of force was what brought Assad to the negotiating table, or how the sanctions made you sound compromising, they are projecting. Therefore, give credit, where credit may well be due: It was Ahmadinejad’s stiff resolve that has brought the westerners to the negotiating table.

    Projection (Psychological) [from Urban Dictionary}

    1) An unconscious self-defence mechanism characterised by a person unconsciously attributing their own issues onto someone or something else as a form of delusion and denial.

    2) A way to blame others for your own negative thoughts by repressing them and then attributing them to someone else. Due to the sorrowful nature of delusion and denial it is very difficult for the target to be able to clarify the reality of the situation.

    3) A way to transfer guilt for your own thoughts, emotions and actions onto another as a way of not admitting your guilt to yourself.
    Projection (Psychological)

    1) Believing that someone else does not like you when it is indeed you that does not like them. By projecting this onto another you ascribe the negativity of the thoughts/feelings onto them so your ego does not have to admit the deficiency of your own thought processes.

    2) A person in a relationship meets someone else out of spite for their partner and then forms an attachment to the person they have met; they then accuse their partner of infidelity (or at least considering the idea) so that they do not have to admit to themselves or anyone else that they have already cheated in their own mind.

    3) Repeatedly attacking someone with the ideas that they are: Cold, Arrogant, Selfish, Anti-social and Negative as a way of not admitting to yourself that these appear to be some of your most dominant traits.

    4) Telling someone who is clearly in love with you that they are “unworthy of your love”. When in reality you have doubts within yourself that you are worthy of any love and due to this will attack and destroy any true love that exists towards and/or within you.

  465. Rd. says:

    Richard Steven Hack says:

    “Again, Iran will NEVER have a deterrent powerful enough to deter the United States. “

    Hostilities with US didn’t start a year or two or five or 10 years ago, so what has kept US away for 34 years? Coffee break?

    For your war any time now, as well for those who believe the necessity of nuclear deterrence, I believe you have overlooked a simple fact. IRI already had its ‘nuke’ deterrence from the early days. It is called the ‘Sacred Defense’. You have to wonder the impact of that on US hostile policies against Iran.

    You ‘seem’ well versed on US mil capabilities, strategy, etc.. UN-matched technology, air supremacy, remote bombing, etc, etc.. Result of what you might call the Vietnam syndrome (??). Does it not seem obvious, US is not willing to get in the pitt and go toe to toe with an adversary? US is not willing or able to conduct such campaigns out side of its borders without a citizenry supported army. The strategy is predicated on mass bombing, quick victory, mission accomplished. Hence, US UN-willingness/in-ability to confront IRI head-on, because it is UN-able/UN-willing to commit to boots on the ground.

    You can NOT destroy eeman (believes) of others by bombs and treats (Vietnam). Despite IRI’s steadfast approach, they have also been pragmatic. In that, they have frustrated US designs in the region at every turn. Yet, have always kept the door open for dignified resolution of differences. For those who believe the election of President Rohani was equivalent to giving up the keys, I think that would be incorrect.

    It is amazing to see within weeks of ‘obliterating’ Syria, we are now hearing discussion of meetings with IRI?!?! Would this be called a power play by IRI?

    I still believe IRI drew the red-line on Syria, conferred Syria to give-up CW, provided the russians with the alibis to save US. US is facing financial uncertainty and any instability in energy prices would have harsh consequences. This also provided the russians to be elevated as a determining actor in the world.

    US recognizing its unilateral moment is coming to an end and is not wiling to accept russia as an equal. So ‘perhaps’ some strategic understanding with IRI is possible, even for delaying the UN-avoidable.

    These things just don’t happen overnight, or out of sheer luck, or gaffs(though, they help!). It is called planning/anticipating.

  466. fyi says:

    kooshy says:

    September 20, 2013 at 1:40 am

    For this reason, US will occupy Qeshm.

    But the real deal in at Shat-Al Arab waterway where Iran can declare it a closed military zone without firing a shot.

    In Hormuz, what Iranians need to do is to sink a few ships and block that channel.

  467. Dan Cooper says:

    Iran calls for Israeli WMDs to be dismantled

    The Iranian foreign minister has called for Israel’s nuclear and chemical weapons to be dismantled, saying Syria’s recent move to turn in its chemical arms has left no excuse for the Tel Aviv regime to retain its arsenals of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs).

  468. Karl.. says:


    “Wow if these two were correct, one wonders what Iran has been doing in these last 35 years. to me it looks like they(Iranians) have done a good job deterring every warmonger westerner pretty well without firing a single shot what more do they need?”

    They are one of the most threatened states in the world, obviously their enemies are not deterreed. Constantly there are talk about military action by Israel/EU/US.

  469. Fiorangela says:

    It is recorded that my ancient Italian ancestors killed pigeons and examined their guts before deciding on matters of great moment for the state and the world as they knew it.

    The ancient Chinese had a somewhat more sophisticated process for guiding decision-making: they heated up bones until the surface cracked, then the fracture-lines were ‘read’ to determine the future. The system was sophisticated in that the readings were recorded, as well as the actions taken as guided by the readings. Later, the outcomes of the actions were correlated with the initial readings.

    In the Roman empire, the fetiales were members of the Roman religious organization; “no treaty was binding unless it had been ratified with most solemn religious ceremonies.” Thus, to “deal with the gods in international affairs,” twenty holy heralds — fetiales — were established as the interface between the people and the gods on those occasions.

    The most important of the fetiales’s duties was in declaring war,

    “for it seemed useless to hope for victory unless first by legalistic formula the enemy was put in the wrong before the gods.”

    In the most ancient days, the ceremony to declare war properly required that the head of the fetiales and three or more of his colleagues —

    “march solemnly to the hostile frontier, [and] with due ceremony recite the wrongs [against] Rome and demand redress and to hurl a spear dipped in blood across the boundary; then and not until then could the legions march forth in any offensive war.”

    The Roman Empire expanded geographically more rapidly than it developed technologically. Frontiers across which bloody spears were called for were farther and farther from the fetiales’ comfortable digs on the Quirinal. And so ancient Romans ingeniously devised a diplomatic ceremony that would have done Dennis Ross proud:

    “Before the Temple of Bellona in the Campus Martius is a bit of ground whereon stands a certain column. When it seemed desirable to declare war on an unneighborly German tribe, a captive from these barbarians was duly hunted up in the slave market at Rome, and a legal deed was solemnly made out transferring this land to the prisoner. The spot was now technically “hostile ground,” and the Pater Patratus [head fetiale] and his fellows … all ordered their litters and were peacefully taken out to the Temple of Bellona. The Germans were carefully summoned to “do the Romans right,” and no answer coming, the head fitial with all the ancient formulas and curses flung the spear into the column.

    The war could now proceed with the gods’ full blessing.” [source: A Day in Old Rome, by William Stearns Davis, pp. 422-423]

    Pope Francis is approaching rock-star status in a long-dispirited world-wide Catholic community. His call for a day of prayer and fasting with the goal of achieving a non-violent resolution of the (most current) conflict involving Syria has inspired many Catholics. In a disjuncture similar to the fetiales of ancient Rome, based on the comments of many Catholics (presumably) on the National Catholic Reporter website , their ability to express very pious sentiments and to invoke the power of prayer outstrips their deep and de-mystified knowledge of the elements of the conflict.

    In that, they are not much different from the leaders of the United States, those latter-day pigeon-slayers who rely on mystical (and hubristic) notions about themselves rather than on actual facts and evidence to “hurl the bloody spear” against a “captive, enslaved” people.

    On Oct. 10, 2002, the U.S. Senate began a 16-and-a-half hour debate on the resolution to authorize Pres. George Bush to use force against Iraq.

    The marathon session was opened with this prayer by the chaplain of the Senate, Rev. Lloyd Ogilvie:

    “Almighty god, all power and authority belong to you.

    You hold universes in your hands and focus your attention on the planet earth. We humble ourselves before you. You alone are lord of all nations, and have called on our nation to be a leader in the family of nations.

    By your providence you have brought to this Senate the men and women through whom you can rule wisely in the soul-sized matters that affect the destiny of humankind.

    With awe and wonder at your trust in them, the senators soon will vote on the resolution on Eyeraq as part of our nation’s ongoing battle against terrorism. Grip their minds with three assurances to sustain them:

    –You are sovereign of this land and they are accountable to you.
    –You are able to guide their thinking and speaking and decisions if they will but ask you.
    –And you will bring them to unity so that they may lead our nation in its strategic role against terrorism and help the nations of the free world in their shared obligation.

    Oh god hear our prayer. You are our lord and savior. Amen.”

    It is not known if a committee of the Senate has been charged with the duty to “read the bones” and correlate the outcome of the October 2002 god-guided “soul-sized” decisions, with the status of some 6 million Iraqi citizens — either dead, refugees, or internally displaced — and the remains of their nation.

  470. fyi says:

    Fiorangela says:

    September 20, 2013 at 11:06 am

    You alone are lord of all nations, and have called on

    our nation to be a leader in the family of nations.”

    Yes, pathetique – coming from falliable men in state of fall – persuming to know what God has willed.

  471. BiBiJon says:

    Why eat from only one side of the trough when there are 2 sides?

  472. kooshy says:

    Karl.. says:
    September 20, 2013 at 10:18 am

    “They are one of the most threatened states in the world, their obviously their enemies are not deterred. Constantly there are talk about military action by Israel/EU/US.’

    So!!!??? Is everybody else in the world since the beginning of the history, even Francis Fukuyama’s stupid “end of history” didn’t being threatened?
    What you haven’t, and I don’t think you want to explain is, why and how 34 years of continued threat has not materialized to any direct war by US, if as you may think US wanted a war with Iran.
    Obviously like you claim Iran’s enemies are not deterred to make continued cheap threats, but on the other hand obviously, if they haven’t been able or unwilling to attack Iran when she was at her weakest (after Iran- Iraq war) and her enemies were at their strongest after US 1st gulf war when there was no USSR, there must be something that is effectively deterring this war mongers. Do you want to name what that tune is?

    fyi says:
    September 20, 2013 at 9:40 am

    No, the real deal is denying any naval operations outside of north Arabian sea, denying naval operation in the gulf area is very easy.
    Iran’s Missiles are to damages various economical and non-economical PGCC installations in very short time.
    Don’t need to place artillery on Qeshm or Tonb Islands, Artilleries are placed on mainland’s costal range where is easier to supply and relocated.

  473. Karl.. says:


    Why would Iran be attacked by west/Israel during Iran/Iraq war? The situation today vs then is completely different. In terms of Iran being threatened with war.
    And the reason why Israel havent got America to do this yet is because US dont see a reason for such a war at this moment. Besides what America and Israel have done to Iran from sanctions, to assassinations, threats etcetera are all acts of war, but Iran hasnt responded.

  474. BiBiJon says:

    Karl.. says:
    September 20, 2013 at 11:58 am

    “Besides what America and Israel have done to Iran from sanctions, to assassinations, threats etcetera are all acts of war, but Iran hasnt responded.s ”

    Iran’s response to these acts have been far more devastating to the US than you imagine.

    -A nation that stays calm in the face of repeated provocations, is a nation that can be trusted.

    -The publicity around the murder of scientists, STUXNET, etc has devastated the credibility of the aggressor. Just for example imagine how US is going to complain, with a straight face, to China about cyber attacks.

    We are where we are because Iran (or fyi’s god) has turned their tricks on them. To quote Robert Gates, “blowing up a few places is not a strategy.” Iran has been absolutely correct in the way she has handled herself: with strength, resolve, and seriousness, which is a crucial part of “winning the narrative.” And, remember the real battle ground is the ‘narrative.’ Only someone in need of anger-management therapy would squander the narrative, for the sake revenge.

  475. kooshy says:

    Karl.. says:
    September 20, 2013 at 11:58 am


    No one said if America should have attacked Iran during the Iran war with Iraq (dumb idea with USSR there?), but right after US’s 1st gulf war when Russia was in turmoil.

    So you think Iran should start shooting wars with countries that economically sanctions Iran, including China and Russia and UN just to show they are angry and not taking it any more.

    OK, that’s reckless, folks like you need to read more history (the oriental kind) .

  476. Fiorangela says:

    Russia’s deputy FM claims UN ignored critical evidence in Syria; CW investigation is flawed:

  477. James Canning says:

    I recommend Philip Stephens’ column in the Finacial Times today: “The Syria deal holds a lesson for Obama – – talk to Iran”.

    Stephens says Obama should offer normal relations with the US.

  478. James Canning says:

    “True to form, Benjamin Netanyahu. . . would have us believe the US should now rush to attack Tehran. The reverse is true.”
    – – Philip Stephens, in the FT today

  479. Karl.. says:


    There was no reason for US to attack Iran after the war, again the situation is not the same as of today and cant be compared.

    I just said that there is already a war against Iran but for the reason that Iran hasnt responded, folks should not take that that there is no war – therefore the enemies have indeed attacked and arent afraid or deterred.

  480. kooshy says:

    Modified from BiBi’s earlier link

    US, Iran may kiss and make up — much to India’s (+ china+ Russia+ Ban Moon + little puddle Colonialists UK & France, + Non sovereign states of Germany, Japan & Korea + Salmon Islands & Palau since they can eat the fish at home and save the bill for sending one of their fisherman’s to UN to vote against Iran every time + etc.) relief

  481. James Canning says:


    Interesting piece you linked, from Reuters. Quote: “The US said on Tuesay an Arab push to single out Israel for criticism over its assumed nuclear arsenal would haurt diplomatic efforts to ban [WMD] in the Middle East.”

    Rubbish, in my view. Rubbish the Israel lobby demands be put out by the US to “protect” Israel.

  482. James Canning says:


    I take it you agree with FYI that Iran should try to injure Iraq, Turkey, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, if an attempt is made to preevent Iran from exporting oil by sea?

  483. BiBiJon says:

    Fiorangela says:
    September 20, 2013 at 12:44 pm

    I am shocked. Doesn’t Russia’s deputy FM understand that Michael Oren’s “preferred bad guys” would never cross the line and go beyond cannibalism. Perish the thought.

  484. James Canning says:


    What price would Iran pay, if it were to block shipping to and from the Gulf? In your estimation.

  485. Fiorangela says:

    BiBiJon says: September 20, 2013 at 12:28 pm

    Earlier Empty corrected my ‘misoverestimation’ of Iranian discipline.

    OK, if you say so.

    That means that the concepts Iran relies upon are not that difficult.

    One of the major symbols of all peoples and creeds everywhere is the scales of justice: there are two pans; justice = the pans in balance.

    The (genuinely) universal creed that Presbyterian Pastor Ogilvie would have been more accurate to have summoned in his prayer in October 2002, is the Golden Rule:

    Do unto others what you would have others do unto you.

    The U.S. has abandoned both of those concepts.

    It’s useful to explore the system by which U.S. has done away with the notions that there are two pans on a balance scale; that the OTHER SIDE of a situation has a right to be heard — even the fetiale called out charges to their adversary and gave him a (token) chance to respond.

    But the system by which U.S. decides matters of war and peace is inherently flawed in that it takes place entirely inside the institutions of U.S. government. The Other Side of the story is never heard.

    Vladimir Putin pounded his fist on the dome of the U.S. Congress and said, There is another side to the story and you WILL hear that side.

    Rouhani has been saying the same thing less dramatically but persistently and consistently.

    Both Putin and Rouhani emerge from cultures that have a deep religious history: I argue that Iran’s expression of Islam is entwined with Iran’s essential Zoroastrian character, which essence is also the basis of certain ethical norms in both Judaism and Christianity.

    Putin alluded to universal moral principles in his New York times writing.

  486. James Canning says:


    Two giant blunders by Hitler: attacking USSR AND declaring war on the US.

    Stalin’s forced collectivization of farming in the Soviet Union was a catastrophic blunder.

  487. kooshy says:

    Karl.. says:
    September 20, 2013 at 12:56 pm

    Karl- With non-substantive replies, are you trying to take over from our own Gav.

    Here you would love this; I think he knows a thing or two more than me and you with regard to Iran’s deterrent capabilities

    A senior military adviser to Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei says Iran is after peace and security and will never start a war.

    “Iran will never be the initiator of any war, but it enjoys incredible power to ward off potential aggressors and this power goes beyond the political borders of Iran,” Rahim Safavi stated, advising Washington and Tel Aviv to eschew thoughts of a military confrontation with Iran.”

  488. James Canning says:


    When you claim Iran will not “close Fordo”, what do you mean?

    Are you arguing Iran will continue to stockpile enriched uranium?

  489. James Canning says:


    Netanyahu wants a US war with Iran even if Iran does not try to build nukes. This is a key problem that needs to be worked around.

  490. Fiorangela says:

    worth noting that Pastor Ogilvie, ordained to the Presbyterian ministry, spent the largest part of his career in Hollywood, where he began a media ministry.

    Film historian Neal Gabler argues that Hollywood is America’s ‘religion,’ and also that Hollywood defines “Americanism.”

    (nb. in the opening of the video linked above, the narrator says that Hollywood’s founders reflect the “persecution they experienced” in their Eastern European homelands.


    The Warner Brothers grew up in Youngstown, Ohio. They went to the same high school as my Father.

  491. James Canning says:


    I think you are simply delusional to believe “the EU” wants “regime change in Iran by any means necessary”.

    Certainly, powerful intererests in the US want regime change. And powerful interests in the EU as well.

  492. James Canning says:


    Are you in effect arguing that the Gulf Arabs who think it necessary to overthrow Bashar al-Assad, are correct?

  493. Karl.. says:


    You missunderstand badly. I have never called for Iran to iniate any war.

  494. BiBiJon says:

    Fiorangela says:
    September 20, 2013 at 1:17 pm

    It might be that it is a question of Dollars and Cents, rather than morality, emotional intelligence, etc.

    I was thinking perhaps the reason why so many think that the per diem threat of force is what has brought any good outcomes recently, is because how else could they justify short changing NIH, schools, roads, and infrastructure in order to afford to have/maintain/expand god’s chosen military.

    In other words, if you spend your money, then look to god for justification of your spending priorities.

  495. kooshy says:

    Karl.. says:
    September 20, 2013 at 12:56 pm

    Karl see this the punch line from Mr. Safavi

    “Iran will never be the initiator of any war, but it enjoys incredible power to ward off potential aggressors and this power goes beyond the political borders of Iran,” Rahim Safavi stated, advising Washington and Tel Aviv to eschew thoughts of a military confrontation with Iran.”

    You know what beyond political borders of Iran means; it means PGCC economic and non-economic installations and assets. This is only possible by a fiercely nationalist nation who shares a common identity that cares to protect collectively by everyone sacrificing. which means yes one can start a war with Iran on her homeland but when and how you can end it and what ends of you gives you enough reasons not to start one.

  496. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    September 20, 2013 at 1:18 pm

    I suggest you study that history – 1929-1933 – very carefully, specially the economic conditions obtaining between City and Village in USSR.

    There was no other way; without the forced collectivization, USSR could not have paid for her rapid industrialization and would have been crushed in World War II.

    The late Joseph Stalin was prescient in many many things.

  497. Sineva says:

    James Canning says:
    September 20, 2013 at 1:14 pm
    The smarter question is what price would iran pay if it did nothing?

  498. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    September 20, 2013 at 1:29 pm

    Not at all; the core EU states: France, UK, Germany, Sweden decided the destroy Iran through economic warfare, the same way the Mongols or French destroyed walled-cities.

    The EU analysts spent a lot of brain power identifying the weak points of the Iranian economy; from gasoline imports to unfinished metals etc. They were trying to destroy the equivalent of German Ball-bearing production of WWII in Iran.

    But they failed.

    This is the salient lesson of the last 3 years of their war; underestimation of Iranian Power and over-estimation of their own.

    They – and US Leaders – are not yet disabused of this and will almost certainly ignore or otherwise be-little Mr. Rouhani’s offer – whatever it is – on Tuesday.

    Axis Powers are not yet ripe in making a deal with Iran.

  499. kooshy says:

    James Canning says:
    September 20, 2013 at 1:25 pm

    “Netanyahu wants a US war with Iran even if Iran does not try to build nukes. This is a key problem that needs to be worked around.’

    Gav that’s west’s problem, not Iran’s, Iran enjoys Israel’s destruction of western hegemony forcing the westerners to ever open the wide gap between the Arab street and the west, for and due to the support west has to throw on Israel. Tell me what strategic benefit Iran gets to stop this?

  500. Karl.. says:

    September 20, 2013 at 1:41 pm

    I already replied @ September 20, 2013 at 1:34 pm

  501. James Canning says:


    I doubt very much it is in Iran’s interests to force Gulf Arabs to align with Israel.
    And surely Iran wwould do better not to engage in hostilities with the US, when this is the course Netanyahu is trying to force.

  502. James Canning says:


    The sanctions adopted by the EU were not intended to bring about “regime change” in Iran. Full stop. That said, many of those who pushed hard for more sanctions, do in fact want regime change in Iran.

  503. James Canning says:


    EU leaders comprehend the sanctions injure the interests of most of the people of the EU. Undeniable fact.

  504. kooshy says:

    What now days, every western analyst forgets or rather not to explore is what the wars of Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Syria have resulted, the learning end point of this recent western wars is that hegemony no longer can be obtained, sustained and maintained by military power, even when you have the biggest and most technically equipped military and you are the sole super power. On the contrary what also has emerged from the three decades of US’s cold war and containment of Iran and in larger sense by studying history of Iran? One would learn and understand that hegemony is more possible to maintain, sustain and obtain at the street level some times permanently, and that only is possible if you don’t have a racist dictatorial view of you interlocutors.
    That’s a cost effective force projection, only possible if you have narratives and means to mean well and wish well. Most often works.

  505. James Canning says:

    “The effort [by the US to improve relations with Iran] has lacked . . . an offer of everything-on-the-table dialogue reaching beyond the nuclear issue to a normalisation of relations.”
    — Philip Stephens, in the Financial Times today

  506. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    September 20, 2013 at 2:10 pm

    We had seen this movie before; in Iran in 1953 when the economic siege war of UK against Iran helped destroy the nationalist government of the late Dr. Mossadeq.

    That approach was tried next successfully in Chile to destroy the late Dr. Allende’s government – bringing housewives into streets of Santiago to beat their pots – enjoying liberties that later were curtailed by the military dicatorship.

    The third time this was used was against Viet Nam when that country invaded and occupied Cambodia – alomost certainly saving hundreds of thousands of people from certain death. Their reward was siege economic war – in one year during that time, the ration of the Foreign Minister of Vite Nam was 13 Kgs of rice for the entire year.

    Next was Yugoslavia and then Zimbabwa and now again Iran.

    You need to read what European Think-Tanks have made publicly available and the cleverness by which they had aimed to – for example – bring transportation in Iran to a stand still.

  507. James Canning says:


    I really doubt Obama wanted “hegemony” in Afghanistan. Clearly he did not want the Democrats to be blamed for allowing the Taleban to take control of the country.

  508. James Canning says:


    I am aware of the planning etc for injuring Iran’s economy. Well aware.

    But I continue to say “the EU” did not seek regime change in Iran. And does not. Though certain powerful interests DO want regime change in Iran.

  509. James Canning says:

    Story in Financial Times today: “Assad needs ‘year’ to destroy chemical arms”.

    Cost of $1 billion seems to be about right. US spends $500 million per year destroying CW.

  510. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    September 20, 2013 at 2:22 pm

    As is said in English: “A difference without a distinction”.

  511. James Canning says:


    I join you in condemning the foolish American response to Vietnam’s overthrow of the Khmer Rouge dictatorship in Cambodia. Pathetically stupid, in my view.

  512. James Canning says:


    I disagree. Strongly. Most European businessmen want relations with Iran retured to normal, if possible.

    Sadly, Iran has done various things that work to the advantage of strong interests in the EU that seek to “protect” Israel by injuring Iran.

  513. James Canning says:

    A distinction without a difference. ?

  514. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    September 20, 2013 at 2:31 pm

    The European Union cannot make Israel safe at any price.

    Neithe can the United States.

    They can beat on Iran as much as they like, the fact is that the world of Islam is opposed to the existence of the State of Israel.

    And they cannot reasonably fight Islam.

    War against Iran will continue ….

  515. James Canning says:

    Bashar al-Assad: “If the [US] is ready to pay this money and take the responsibility of bringing toxic materials to the US, why don’t they do it?” [Quoted in FT today]

  516. James Canning says:


    Israel may be the cause of its own undoing, do to idiotic colonisation programme in the West Bank.

    But, powerful interests in the EU are doing their best to injure Iran, to protect Israel. Iran would do well to counter these enemies of Iran.

  517. Rd. says:

    Why they call it Fordo?

    because the village of Fordow had the highest percentage of fighters killed in the eight-year Iraq-Iran War, or what’s known there as the Sacred Defense Era.

    Read more:

  518. BiBiJon says:

    Fiorangela says:
    September 20, 2013 at 12:44 pm


    might be of interest.

  519. nico says:

    James Canning says:
    September 20, 2013 at 1:01 pm


    Interesting piece you linked, from Reuters. Quote: “The US said on Tuesay an Arab push to single out Israel for criticism over its assumed nuclear arsenal would haurt diplomatic efforts to ban [WMD] in the Middle East.”

    Rubbish, in my view. Rubbish the Israel lobby demands be put out by the US to “protect” Israel.”

    As usual you look at only one side of the story.
    Why you do not critize the US nuke capable missile test ?
    Zionist fault ?

    The US and Israel are the two faces of the same evil.
    And YOU are the same evil as with your usual double or triple standard you just prove every day here that you are a tribal exceptionalist.

    Shame on you. The exceptional leftist.
    The nest of satan.

  520. Sakineh Bagoom says:

    “I take it you agree with FYI that Iran should”

    Take, take, take. Like your colonial past you haven’t stopped taking James.

    Try to give/pay a little. PAY attention, you are check-mated on your hare-brained idea and fantasy of a blockade.

    It’s day 32 of the crisis. Ra’s Tanura (h/t UU) has been damaged beyond repair and will take many years to restore, taking away 5 milion bpd even if the straits open.

    On the 21st day Iran closed Shatt-al- Arab waterway (h/t fyi) because she could.

    Death and destruction across the globe due to shortages.

    Your move.

  521. nico says:

    Surely the jewwwws fault according to the village idiot.

    “Bolivia’s President Evo Morales plans to file legal action against the US president for crimes against humanity, condemning Washington’s intimidation tactics after it denied Venezuelan presidential jet entry into US airspace.“I would like to announce that we are preparing a lawsuit against [US President] Barack Obama to condemn him for crimes against humanity,”
    President Morales announced at a Thursday press conference in the Bolivian city of Santa Cruz, RT reports. He further described the American president as a “criminal” who willingly violates international law. 
    “The US cannot be allowed to continue with its policy of intimidation and blockading presidential flights,” Morales stated.””

  522. Fiorangela says:

    “Putin on Gender issues …

    he castigated the West for losing touch with its Christian roots when it came to gender questions.

    Mr Putin said that “one-gender families” and exaggerated political correctness were leading countries into degradation and a deepening moral crisis.

    One Austrian professor challenged him on this and asked for a guarantee that minority values would be respected in Russia and not subject to harassment.

    Mr Putin denied there were any laws in Russia to punish sexual minorities for their orientation. The Russian law which had caused so much controversy was, he said, simply to stop “propaganda” among minors.

    But the Russian leader did not try to hide his disdain for sexual minorities. Europeans, he continued, were suffering from a falling birth rate and could be in danger of dying out if they did not do something about it.

    “You can either have more children to increase your population,” said Mr Putin in typical blunt fashion, “or have more migrants, but you don’t like them either. It’s your choice.” . . .

    Vladimir Putin on Silvio Berlusconi

    . . .He even returned to the subject to make a joke of what he perceived as Western Europe’s distorted attitude to gender issues. Recalling his friendship with former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, he noted that Mr Berlusconi was now on trial for living with women.

    “But if he’d been living with men, as a homosexual, no-one would have dared lay a finger on him,” Mr Putin said.

    The Russians in the auditorium erupted into roars of laughter. On the panel next to a grinning Mr Putin, his European guests looked bemused and uncomfortable.”

  523. fyi says:

    Fiorangela says:

    September 20, 2013 at 3:29 pm

    Yes, the President of the United States publicly criticizes the legal code of another sovereign state which forbids children under age of 18 to be subject to gay propaganda.

    I think US and EU are truly degenerated in this regards.

    And Mr. Putin is correct, I think Ms. Patricia Ireland was living with a woman having already a husband as well.

    Not a peep out of any one.

    [Regardless of the Lesbian Death Bed phenomenon – after 2 years, nothing happens in that bed.]

  524. Jay says:

    James Canning says:
    September 20, 2013 at 1:23 pm


    I am pleasantly surprised when people read the entire article in the links posted.

    I do however expect a minimum of effort when people respond to such posts to at least read the headline!

    Did you read the headline in the link, James?

  525. kooshy says:

    As usual the trio European political whores (France, UK, and Germany) are always first to jump in front and offer their services, like nothing has ever happened in between us.

    France’s Hollande to meet Iran President Hassan Rowhani at UN

  526. Fiorangela says:

    James Canning says: September 20, 2013 at 1:18 pm

    “Two giant blunders by Hitler: attacking USSR AND declaring war on the US.”

    Yaaas, the same category of strategic blunder as Qaddafi badmouthing the US on radio, and Iran enriching uranium to > 5%:

    in all instances, the actions of Hitler, Qaddafi, and Iran were/are ultimately irrelevant, because the “casus belli” were only pretexts from the outset.

    “Judea declared war on Germany” within 60 days of Hitler’s ascent to chancellorship. The intention from day one (or at least day 14 — Feb. 14, 1933, to be specific) was for German Jews to exodus from Germany and for Germany to be destroyed.

    Had Hitler not been so foolish as to declare war on U.S., some other pretext would have been found to enable the firebombing of Germany that Churchill had set into motion 18 months earlier, on May 11, 1940:

    “On May 10, 1940, Churchill became Prime Minister of England. On May 11, he gave the order to bomb Germany.

    ‘It was a splendid decision,’ writes J. M. Spaight, expert on international law and Secretary of the British Air Ministry. Thanks to that decision, the English can walk with their heads held high. When Churchill began to bomb Germany, he knew that the Germans did not want a bombing war. Their air force, unlike that of the British, was not made for heavy bombs. Churchill went on bombing, even though he knew that reprisals were unavoidable. He consciously sacrificed London and other English cities for the sake of freedom and civilization. [And to draw the ‘isolationist’ U.S. into the war.] ‘It was a splendid decision.’ “ -A History of Bombing, by Sven Lindqvist, p. 5.

  527. Jay says:

    Sakineh Bagoom says:
    September 20, 2013 at 2:54 pm

    That Iran is capable of causing major economic havoc upon the West should she decide to is a forgone conclusion to most objective observers. Nonetheless, I admire your willingness to be a mentor.

    Just to add to the reading material of your students…
    The recognized choke points for oil around the world are: Straits of Hormuz, Strait of Malacca, Abqaiq processing facility, Suez Canal, Bab el-Mandab, Bosporus/Turkish Straits, Mina al-Ahmadi terminal
    (Kuwait), Al Basrah oil terminal (Iraq), LOOP (United States), Druzhba pipeline (Russia)

    of these ten around the world four major choke point, Abqaiq processing facility (and Ras Tundra), Mina al-Ahmadi terminal (Kuwait), Al Basrah oil terminal (Iraq), and Straits of Hormuz can be readily sabotaged long enough to cause immense destruction.

    A published estimate in 2012 suggested that a 30% disruption in the energy supplies from these choke points (translated to approximately 8% of world supplies) for more than 45 days would result in immediate collapse of 5 out of the 8 major world economies.

    For your students: note that a complete disruption is not necessary, and it does not need to be maintained for six months – only 45 days or so!

  528. Bussed-in Basiji says:

    kooshy, Jay, Sakineh Bagoom,

    Rahbar has mentioned more than once that an Iranian response to an attack will be global in scope.

    It’s been a few years now that senior commanders in Iran have said that Iran is capable of “strategic deterrence” vis-a-vis the US and allies.

  529. James Canning says:

    “American officials say they understand that Iran will need some kind of enrichment ability to assure its own people that it has retained its ‘nuclear rights’. . .”
    – – New York Times Sept. 20

  530. James Canning says:


    Are you in effect arguing that Hitler’s biggest blunder was in trying to taek control of Europe?

    Or that the US should have allowed Germany to annex Belgium, The Netherlands, parts of France, half of Poland, etc etc etc?

  531. James Canning says:

    Interesting brief report in the Suncay Times (London) Sept 8: “Foreigners swamp London market”. Oliver Shah writes: “Foreign buyers snapped up almost 80% of the luxury homes built in London in the past two years”.

    “Savills’ prime central London report shows the most sought-after addresses have risen in value by 190% since mid-2005.”

  532. James Canning says:


    Where on earth do you get the notion I am a “leftist”?

    You appear to be arguing no pressure should be put on Israel to get rid of its nukes, unless the US does the same?

  533. James Canning says:


    How many millions of small farmers in the Ukraine were starved to death, at Stalin’s behest? Collective agriculture was a disaster. But interesting notion that it was necessary in order to build up industrial facilities etc etc.

  534. James Canning says:


    You asked what price Iran would pay if it did “nothing”. I take it you mean, in event of blockade of Iranian oil exports, what price would Iran pay if it simply stopped exporting oil by sea? Obviously, financial crisis (unless Iran simply made a deal).

  535. James Canning says:


    Wouldn’t India be the country hurt more than any other, if Iran blocked sea lanes into Persian Gulf?

  536. James Canning says:


    Are you actually arguing the Israel lobby is not at least partly a Jewish lobby group?

  537. BiBiJon says:

    James Canning says:
    September 20, 2013 at 5:59 pm

    “Wouldn’t India be the country hurt more than any other, if Iran blocked sea lanes into Persian Gulf?”

    By Joe, I think you’re onto something, James. Do you suppose India, and other interested parties, might pull out all the stops to stop an extreme act of war on Iranian people, such as a blockade?

  538. BiBiJon says:

    fyi says:
    September 20, 2013 at 5:27 pm

    The Yahoo article is basically quoting one Ben Rhodes.

  539. James Canning says:


    Were you referring to story caption that said “Iran will not close Fordo”?

  540. Kooshy says:

    Bussed-in Basiji says:
    September 20, 2013 at 4:54 pm

    I must admit Imam Khomeini was a very polite man if he wasn’t he would have said “America hich gohiee nemitavanad bokhorad” America can’t do (eat) jack shit, the man was very polite, he instead said “America can’t do nothing”

  541. James Canning says:


    Interesting piece on Ben Rhodes that you linked. FYI should not miss it.

  542. BiBiJon says:

    James Canning says:
    September 20, 2013 at 5:59 pm

    “Wouldn’t India be the country hurt more than any other, if Iran blocked sea lanes into Persian Gulf?”

    By Joe, I think you’re onto something, James. Do you suppose India, and other interested parties, might pull out all the stops to stop an extreme act of war on Iranian people, such as a blockade?

  543. James Canning says:

    “In a world where global politics is no longer a zero-sum game, it is – – or should be – – counterintuitive to pursue one’s interests without considering the interests of others.” Rouhani, in Washington Post Sept. 20

  544. James Canning says:


    Do you suppose India would back China and Russia, in trying to get Iran to suspend enriching to 20?

  545. BiBiJon says:

    James Canning says:
    September 20, 2013 at 6:29 pm

    Are you suggesting anyone wishing to blockade Iran, ought to consider India’s interests too?

  546. Fiorangela says:

    “It is a strange course of events, heavy with historical irony, that has made the prime minister of Israel for now the leader of the West. But irony is better than tragedy.”

    -William Kristol

    Kristol sets up a parallel in which Mussolini’s invasion of Ethiopia is the equivalent of Asssad’s — what, invasion of his own country??

    And because the West failed to stop Mussolini, Hitler was emboldened to occupy the Rhineland. From which it follows that Rouhani will inevitably retake Tehran from British occupiers; no, wait — that’s not right — Russian occupiers, that’s it: Russian and American occupiers: Rouhani is going to put on a “charm offensive” in New York City next week and trick the stupid Americanos into looking the other way while the Iranians occupy Tehran. And large chunks of Isfehan and possibly all the way west to the Persian Gulf.

    Fortunately for Judeo-Christian Civilization, Benjamin Netanyahu will have his red crayon and sketch-pad on hand to greet Dr. Rouhani at the United Nations: Bibi will save us!!

    Save us Bibi We Perish!!

    = = =

    I’m only beginning to comprehend the stock that I come from.

    My Grandfather removed his family from their village farm in Italy to the United States because my uncles were of age to have been drafted in Mussolini’s army. My Mother had no choice but to leave everything that she loved and come to the United States. Her life was not easy. The farm had been left to the care of trustees who turned out not to have been trustworthy. They lost everything.

    William Kristol spits on my Mother’s history.

  547. James Canning says:

    Guardian report Sept 19: “Syrian government says war has reached stalemate” and cease fire may be sought.

  548. James Canning says:


    Bill Kristol thinks Bibi Netanyahu is now “the leader of the West”? Preposterous nonsense. From one of the cheerleaders of the illegal and idiotic invasion of Iraq in 2003.

  549. BiBiJon says:

    Fiorangela says:
    September 20, 2013 at 6:36 pm

    Hate to admit it, but I think Billy boy is right. Forget about handshakes with US, Iran should be focused on making a deal with the apartheid pipsqueak. Any other understanding with anyone else is not worth the paper it is written on.

  550. Cyrus says:

    I don’t think that the rejection of the Syria attack had anything to do with the people’s views. It was instead a result of inter-elite divisions in US policy-making circles. The people have very little to do with it. When there is elite consensus (formed by hook or crook) the people are easily swayed.

  551. James Canning says:


    Aipac pushed hard for the US attack on Syria. And for Congressional approval of an attack. Public opinion mattered.

  552. kooshy says:

    After what happened today in the US House of Representatives is not farfetched to believe that not only Mr. Obama lost the foreign policy initiatives for rest of his 2nd term but with republican vote today is only obvious that he also is effectively being sidestepped and isolated on his internal policies for the rest of his term. If true he will be the first president becoming a setting duck for his last 3 years of presidency.
    There is no question for the next 3 years the country will be damaged by inter political stalemates and party demagogueries.

    For Iran like what Mr. Putin did this is a good (favorable) time to help (catch) the American president at his weakest time to make and smooth the ground with and for next US leader.

  553. fyi says:

    James Canning says:
    September 20, 2013 at 5:51 pm


    Are you some sort of sophomore?

    It was called “Primitive Accumulation of Capital” and extracting by force from the countryside – in the absence of useful goods to exchange with the grain – was the only way USSR had to pay for her rapid industrialization program.

    Perhaps you ought to consider that UK today exists because of the prescient policies of the late Marshall Stalin.

  554. fyi says:

    Jay says:
    September 20, 2013 at 4:16 pm

    45 days is not enough; they should be out of commission for the duration of hostilities; about 4 years.

    Any way that approach is not useful against Pakistan, India, and Israel.

  555. Jay says:

    James Canning says:
    September 20, 2013 at 5:59 pm

    India will be one of the countries impacted by the disruption. However, based on the IEA data, Western Europe will bear the brunt. In fact, this coming winter, absent additional energy supplies, Western Europe and Korea will face significant shortage issues.

  556. Jay says:

    James Canning says:
    September 20, 2013 at 6:14 pm

    Yes James. Thanks for reading.

  557. Fiorangela says:

    BiBiJon says: September 20, 2013 at 1:36 pm
    BiBiJon says: at 6:49 pm

    in my opinion, “shortchanging NIH” is not a bad thing — the place has ballooned massively. Private enterprise should be taking the risks that US government is funding at NIH. When the money supply is as near as your closest Federal Reserve ATM, there is no discipline on spending and corruption and overspending become a habit.

    re Bibi — I don’t agree. U.S.A. is enormously corrupt but I have to conclude Israel is worse: Where is the Israeli Flynt Leverett? Where is the Israeli Hillary Leverett? Is there a John Entelis, Dennis Kucinich or Andrew Bacevich in Israel? All hope is not lost — yet.

  558. Persian Gulf says:

    fyi says:
    September 19, 2013 at 7:48 pm

    Wasn’t it a big mistake to attack USSR without finishing the job in west with Britain? probably due to racial dimension Hitler thought Brits are from the same bloodline and he should reach an agreement with them.

    and wasn’t it Mussolini’s stupidity to occupy Greece which delayed Nazis’ attack on USSR for a couple of important months.

    May be Fiorangela can answer this question. Couldn’t Nazis just get their portion of Poland and leave the rest to the USSR? weren’t they looking for more land and resources in places like Ukraine?

  559. Fiorangela says:

    James Canning says: September 20, 2013 at 5:40 pm

    “Are you in effect arguing that Hitler’s biggest blunder was in trying to taek control of Europe?”

    – – –

    James, You have a Rubics Cube way of twisting statements.
    I neither argued or implied, nor am I aware of evidence to support the claim that “Hitler was trying to take control of Europe.”

    Hitler wanted “Lebensraum” — primarily agricultural space, either from the Ukraine, which was very fertile and also outside the range of Britain’s ability to blockade, as it had done in WWI, causing the deaths of 800,000 German civilians (a Never Again moment for Germany’s leaders), or from the Balkans. Herbert Hoover records that, after talking with Hitler, Goering, and numerous leaders and diplomats in Europe and Britain, including Neville Chamberlain, it was his understanding that Germany’s leaders had NO designs whatsoever on France, England, other western European states — Just Eastern Europe.

    Hitler also was passionate about destroying the “Bolshevik entity” in Russia.
    In that, it is as if NSDAP was carrying out Woodrow Wilson’s fondest wish: In 1918, Woodrow Wilson sent 8500 troops to Siberia to try to re-open the Russian front against Germany. France was being bombarded and was in serious danger of falling to Germany; the only scheme the Allies could think of to weaken the German onslaught was to divert German forces back to the East. By the time Wilson mobilized U.S. troops to Siberia, the war was nearly over. The mission was futile.

    BUT, Wilson kept the 8500 troops in the region for a new mission: destroy Russian Bolshevism. The scheme this time was to ally with 12,000 Japanese troops who would inspire anti-Bolshevik Russians to rise up against the Bolsheviks and vanquish them.
    What could possibly go wrong?
    For starters, the Japanese, whom the Russians hated since Russia’s humiliating defeat about 25 years earlier, sent 72,000 troops, not just 12,000 as expected.
    Hatred of the massed Japanese force that the anti-Bolsheviks were expected to fight alongside, was a bad omen.
    Add to that Russian resistance to the brand of anti Bolshevism that the that the US was selling — it looked to Russians like czarism. The result was that anti-Bolshevik Russians allied with Bolsheviks to drive the intruder out of Russia!

    James wrote:

    “Or that the US should have allowed Germany to annex Belgium, The Netherlands, parts of France, half of Poland, etc etc etc?”

    Excuse me?

    “the US should have allowed . . .”

    A while back Dan Joyner wrote a critique of some writing about U.S. – Iran diplomacy that concluded with this statement:

    “. . .the paternalistic, arrogant tone that drives most of the world crazy about US “diplomacy,” and makes them want to collectively scream at us “who the f#&*! do you think you are!?!”

    http slash slash armscontrollaw dot com/2013/07/13/einhorn-on-getting-to-yes-with-iran/

  560. Fiorangela says:

    Cyrus says: September 20, 2013 at 7:10 pm

    spot on.

    I maintain that the model for this war roll-out is the campaign to involve U.S. in WWII. The American people were firmly resistant: they felt the US had been tricked into WWI by the British, and they darn well weren’t going to be tricked again to save the bacon of the British. If they were dumb enough to pick a fight with Germany, let them take the blows and take care of themselves. Not even a massive, relentless propaganda campaign functioned to push the American masses over the mark — nothing worked ’til Pearl Harbor.

    But that did not mean that FDR’s administration did not water down the Neutrality Act, impose a peace-time draft, enact Lend-Lease (effectively, engaging US in war in alliance w/ Britain), or provide convoy protection to British merchant ships. Thus, with or without — generally, without — the consent of the American people, FDR incrementally marched the U.S. into war.

  561. Empty says:


    RE: “Excuse me? [to James Canning] “the US should have allowed . . .” A while back Dan Joyner wrote a critique of some writing about U.S. – Iran diplomacy that concluded with this statement: “. . .the paternalistic, arrogant tone that drives most of the world crazy about US “diplomacy,” and makes them want to collectively scream at us “who the f#&*! do you think you are!?!”

    Gene Sharp once said, “without at least the passive support of the general population and his/her agents, the most powerful dictator in the world becomes just another crackpot with dreams of world domination.” The United States, I think, should be quite thankful to vassals like James Canning for their continued support and their efforts in passing the historical events of the past century through a “vassal-to-master” filter.

  562. Empty says:


    Don’t take James Canning’s inattention to your valid points too seriously. If you told him that you cannot make spinach quiche with parsley, he would be likely to respond, “are you suggesting that parsley is not a vegetable? preposterous.”

    His behavior makes for an interesting case. I think if there were a disorder like his, it should be called “cognitive articulation disorder”. Articulation disorder is a neurological disorder in which a person with a brain injury (due to physical injuries, stroke, tumors and so on) has difficulties with the way sounds are formed and assembled, therefore, s/he often omits, adds, substitutes, or distorts sounds. In James Canning’s statements and responses, instead of sounds, one might often observe omission, addition, substitution, or distortion of facts as well as concepts. A very interesting and not-yet-studied case.

  563. M. Ali says:

    He would also ask, “Are you suggesting that parsley will accept Iran’s enrichment to 20%?”

  564. Jay says:

    fyi says:
    September 20, 2013 at 8:08 pm

    Perhaps we are addressing different points. Presumably, it would take much longer than 45 days to recover from the destruction of the ports of delivery. However, I was pointing out that Western Europe’s Energy vulnerability window is far shorter.

  565. Jay says:

    Empty says:
    September 21, 2013 at 12:01 am

    I looked and there is no CPT code for “Cognitive articulation disorder”!

  566. James Canning says:


    You tell me the “valid points” made by Jay, in your view, to which I did not respond.

  567. James Canning says:


    Fiorangela argued that powerful Jewish interests were determined to force the US into attacking Germany. Even if Germany did not declare war on the US. Do you agree with her?

  568. James Canning says:


    Is it fair to say you think Germany should have won the Second World War?

  569. James Canning says:


    George V asked Woodrow Wilson to use the large American army in Western Europe in late 1918, to attack the Bolsheviks. Wilson refused. The German army would have been willing to attack the Bolsheviks.

  570. James Canning says:


    I think China, India, South Korea and Japan, import more oil and gas from the Gulf, than does Western Europe.

    Closure would likely bring global recession.