The Year of Iran: Tehran’s Challenge to American Hegemony in 2014 (Leveretts in The World Financial Review)

Earlier this week, The World Financial Review published our latest article, “The Year of Iran:  Tehran’s Challenge to American Hegemony in 2014.”  Click here to read it online; the text is also appended below.  As always, we encourage readers to offer comments both on this site and on The World Financial Review Web site.

The Year of Iran:  Tehran’s Challenge to American Hegemony in 2014

The World Financial Review, Jan./Feb. 2014

In 1979, Iran shocked the world—and directly confronted America’s hegemonic ambitions in the Middle East—by charting its own revolutionary course toward participatory Islamist governance and foreign policy independence.  Over the past thirty-five years the Islamic Republic of Iran has held dozens of presidential, parliamentary, and local council elections and attained impressive developmental outcomes—including more progressive results at alleviating poverty, delivering health care, providing educational access, and (yes) expanding opportunities for women than the last shah’s regime ever achieved.  Furthermore, the Islamic Republic has done these things while withstanding significant regional challenges and mounting pressure from the United States and its allies.  Below, Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett suggest that like 1979, 2014 is likely to be, in unique ways, another Year of Iran, when Tehran’s foreign policy strategy will either finally compel Western acceptance of Iran’s sovereign rights—especially to enrich uranium under international safeguards—or fundamentally delegitimise America’s already eroding pretensions to Middle Eastern hegemony.  

Hassan Rohani’s election as Iran’s president seven months ago caught most of the West’s self-appointed Iran “experts” by (largely self-generated) surprise.  Over the course of Iran’s month-long presidential campaign, methodologically-sound polls by the University of Tehran showed that a Rohani victory was increasingly likely.  Yet Iran specialists at Washington’s leading think tanks continued erroneously insisting (as they had for months before the campaign formally commenced) that Iranians could not be polled like other populations and that there would be “a selection rather than an election,” engineered to install Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s “anointed” candidate—in most versions, former nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili.  On election day, as Iranian voters began casting their ballots, the Washington Post proclaimed that Rohani “will not be allowed to win”—a statement reflecting virtual consensus among American pundits.

Of course, this consensus was wrong—as have been most of the consensus judgments on Iran’s politics advanced by Western analysts since the country’s 1979 revolution.  After Rohani’s victory, instead of admitting error, America’s foreign policy elite manufactured two explanations for it.  One was that popular disaffection against the Islamic Republic—supposedly reflected in Iranians’ determination to elect the most change-minded candidate available to them—had exceeded even the capacity of Khamenei and his minions to suppress.  This narrative, however, rests on agenda-driven and false assumptions about who Rohani is and how he won.

At sixty-five, Rohani is not out to fundamentally change the Islamic Republic he has worked nearly his entire adult life to build.  The only cleric on the 2013 presidential ballot, Rohani belongs to Iran’s main conservative clerical association, not its reformist antipode.  While he has become the standard bearer for the Islamic Republic’s “modern” (or “pragmatic”) right, with considerable support from the business community, his ties to Khamenei are also strong.  After Rohani stepped down as secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council in 2005, Khamenei made Rohani his personal representative on the Council.

Backing Rohani was thus an unlikely way for Iranian voters to demand radical change, especially when an eminently plausible reformist was on the ballot—Mohammad Reza Aref, a Stanford Ph.D. in electrical engineering who served as one of reformist President Mohammad Khatami’s vice presidents. (Methodologically-sound polls showed that Aref’s support never exceeded single digits; he ultimately withdrew three days before Iranians voted.)  The outcome, moreover, hardly constituted a landslide—not for Rohani and certainly not for reformism: Rohani won by just 261,251 votes over the 50-percent threshold for victory, and the parliament elected just one year before is dominated by conservatives.

The other explanation for Rohani’s success embraced by American elites cites it as proof that U.S.-instigated sanctions are finally “working”—that economic distress caused by sanctions drove Iranians to elect someone inclined to cut concessionary deals with the West.  But the same polls that accurately predicted Rohani’s narrow win also show that sanctions had little to do with it.  Iranians continue to blame the West, not their own government, for sanctions.  And they do not want their leaders to compromise on what they see as their country’s sovereignty and national rights—rights manifest today in Iran’s pursuit of a civil nuclear program.

The Iranian Challenge

Iran’s presidential election and the smooth transfer of office to Rohani from term-limited incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stand out in today’s Middle East.  Compared to Afghanistan, Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Palestine, Syria, and Tunisia, the Islamic Republic is actually living up to former U.S. President Jimmy Carter’s description of Iran as “an island of stability” in an increasingly unsettled region.  And compared to some Gulf Arab monarchies, where perpetuation of (at least superficial) stability is purchased by ever increasing domestic expenditures, the Islamic Republic legitimates itself by delivering on the fundamental promise of the revolution that deposed the last shah thirty-five years ago:  to replace Western-imposed monarchical rule with an indigenously generated political model integrating participatory politics and elections with principles and institutions of Islamic governance.

These strengths have enabled the Islamic Republic to withstand sustained regional and Western pressure, and to pursue a foreign policy strategy likely to reap big payoffs in 2014.  This strategy aims to replace American hegemony, regionally and globally, with a more multi-polar distribution of power and influence.  It seeks to achieve this by using international law and institutions, and by leveraging the Islamic Republic’s model of participatory Islamist governance, domestic development, and foreign policy independence to accumulate real “soft power”—not just with a majority of Iranians living inside their country, but (according to polls) with hundreds of millions of people across the Muslim world and beyond, from Brazil to China and South Africa.  Such soft power was on display, for example, in the last year of Ahmadinejad’s presidency, when, during a trip to China, he won a standing ovation from a large audience at Peking University, where a representative sample of next-generation Chinese elites showed themselves deeply receptive to his call for a more equitable and representative international order.

In the current regional and international context, the West is increasingly challenged to come to terms with the Islamic Republic as an enduring entity representing legitimate national interests.  In Tehran, the United States and its European allies could have a real partner in countering al-Qa’ida-style terrorism and extremism, in consolidating stable and representative political orders in Syria and other Middle Eastern trouble spots, and in resolving the nuclear issue in a way that sets the stage for moving toward an actual WMD-free zone in the region.  But partnering with Tehran would require Washington and its friends in London and Paris to accept the Islamic Republic as the legitimate government of a fully sovereign state with legitimate interests—something that Western powers have refused to accord to any Iranian government for two centuries.

President Obama’s highly public failure to muster political support for military strikes against the Assad government following the use of chemical weapons in Syria on August 21, 2013 has effectively undercut the credibility of U.S. threats to use force against Iran.  On November 24, 2013, this compelled an American administration, for the first time since the January 1981 Algiers Accords that ended the embassy hostage crisis, to reach a major international agreement with Tehran—the interim nuclear deal between Iran and the P5+1—largely on Iranian terms.  (For example, the interim nuclear deal effectively negates Western demands—long rejected by Tehran but now enshrined in seven UN Security Council resolutions—that Iran suspend all activities related to uranium enrichment).

But recent Western recognition of reality is still partial and highly tentative.  The United States and its British and French allies continue to deny that Iran has a right to enrich uranium under international safeguards.  They also demand that, as part of a final deal, Tehran must shut down its protected enrichment site at Fordo, terminate its work on a new research reactor at Arak, and allow Western powers to micromanage the future development of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.  Such positions are at odds with the language of the interim nuclear deal and of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).  They are also as hubristically delusional as the British government’s use of the Royal Navy to seize tankers carrying Iranian oil on the high seas after a democratically-elected Iranian government nationalised the British oil concession in Iran in 1951—and as London’s continued threat to do so even after the World Court ruled against Britain in the matter.

If Western powers can realign their positions with reality on the nuclear issue and on various regional challenges in the Middle East, Iran can certainly work with that.  But Iranian strategy takes seriously the real prospect that Western powers may not be capable of negotiating a nuclear settlement grounded in the NPT and respectful of the Islamic Republic’s legal rights—just as Britain and the United States were unwilling to respect Iran’s sovereignty over its own natural resources in the early 1950s.  Under such circumstances, more U.S.-instigated secondary sanctions that illegally threaten third countries doing business with Iran will not compel Tehran to surrender its civil nuclear program.  Rather, Iran’s approach—including a willingness to conclude what the rest of the world other than America, Britain, France, and Israel would consider a reasonable nuclear deal—seeks to make it easier for countries to rebuild and expand economic ties to the Islamic Republic even if Washington does not lift its own unilaterally-imposed sanctions.

Likewise, Iranian strategy takes seriously the real prospect that Washington cannot disenthrall itself from Obama’s foolish declaration in August 2011 that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad must go—and therefore that America cannot contribute constructively to the quest for a political settlement to the Syrian conflict.  If the United States, Britain, and France continue down their current counter-productive path in Syria, Tehran can play off their accumulating policy failures and the deepening illegitimacy of America’s regional posture to advance the Islamic Republic’s strategic position.

How Will the West Respond?

Coming to terms with the Islamic Republic will require the United States to abandon its already eroding pretensions to hegemony in the Middle East.  But, if Washington does not come to terms with the Islamic Republic, it will ultimately be forced to surrender those pretensions, as it was publicly and humiliatingly forced to do in 1979.  Moreover, continuing hostility toward the Islamic Republic exacerbates America’s inability to deal with popular demands for participatory Islamist governance elsewhere in the Middle East.  Less than a month after Rohani’s election, it was widely perceived that the United States tacitly supported a military coup that deposed Egypt’s first democratically elected (and Islamist) government.  The coup in Egypt hardly obviates the fact that, when given the chance, majorities in Middle Eastern Muslim societies reject Western intervention and choose to construct participatory Islamist orders.  Refusing to accept this reality will only accelerate the erosion of U.S. influence in the region.

The United States is not the first imperial power in decline whose foreign policy debate has become increasingly detached from reality—and history suggests that the consequences of such delusion are usually severe.  The time for American elites to wake up to Middle Eastern realities before the United States and its Western allies face severe consequences for their strategic position in this vital part of the world is running out.

–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett


382 Responses to “The Year of Iran: Tehran’s Challenge to American Hegemony in 2014 (Leveretts in The World Financial Review)”

  1. Iranian@Iran says:

    Excellent piece. The US supports the Saudi dictatorship’s spread of extremism in order to weaken the independent and democratic Islamic Republic and then American officials and “experts” wonder why people dislike them so much. Not only is the US government immoral, but it is detached from reality.

  2. BiBiJon says:

    “The United States is not the first imperial power in decline whose foreign policy debate has become increasingly detached from reality”

    Case in point, Fareed Zakaria in WaPo:

    For reasons too strange to contemplate, Zacharia actually imagines Iran would put her nuclear energy independence, i.e. the the latent capacity to re-fuel NPP(s) to the whims of others.

    No Iranian government, including the present Rouhani administration, would survive the public wrath if they lay Iran’s neck on a Western guillotine just to show how cooperative Iran can be.

  3. Ataune says:

    One of the most objective analysis for the last 13 years at least of the strategic aim of IRI, both internally and internationallys. Not only that, but also a well argumented piece on why the current American policy in the region is not heading toward a positive outcome for her. Accomodation with Iran, on terms recognizing her independance and regional power, is clearly the best option for the US. By making this known, and one would hope gradullay accepted among ruling elites, you are showing your deep love for your country and your principled approach toward international relations.

  4. HnH says:

    While I believe that only military and economic power influence the relationship between states, I would be relieved if the US-Iran standoff would be settled peacefully.

    The US and Europe need the ability to cooperate and do business with Iran, particularly its ability to add to the global oil supply. The US also needs the resources spent on Iran to contain China, because that will become the next major challenge for the US, the Petrodollar and and its military primacy.

    While the US-China angle does not have an immediate impact for Europe, any further deterioration of the US-Iran relationship surely would have.

    Let’s hope that Israel, SA and other forces pushing for an intensifying conflict will not be able to thwart a successful and peaceful conclusion of this saga, because the fallout from a war with Iran would be uncontrollable and so devastatingly detrimental for the global economy.

    Obama and Rohani, do us all a favor and resolve this issue.

  5. Karl.. says:

    Leverett’s show again that they are one of the best analysts on this topic.
    Although it could added more about the role of israel/aipac.

  6. fyi says:

    HnH says:

    January 31, 2014 at 10:47 am

    The issues are unresolvable as long as US and EU leaders refuse to acknowledge that they are engaged in a religious war against Iran, the Shia, and Islam on behalf of the Jewish Fantasy in Palestine.

  7. kooshy says:

    BiBiJon says:
    January 31, 2014 at 7:59 am

    After hearing such a determinative No, Absolutely Not from Rohani, I really can’t figure out what the purpose of Farid’s article in WP was.
    With regard to Iran’s NPT nuclear rights, as it is evidenced by the polls linked in this article, I am sure not even SL’s political capital is enough to permanently give up any of Iran’s NPT rights.

    In my hopeful opinion contrary to the Nixon’s China model, the way current American administration is internally working out it’s Iran problem is (which I think is correct) by preparing the congress, and the public with a salami slicing method, up until the public opinion is strong enough to pressure the congress to stand up to the hawks. In some way so far this has worked, we will see more double talks from Kerry, Obama and opinion polls from the media with incremental stepping back.

  8. Karl.. says:

    Interesting is of also that Iraq is getting approached the same way Iran is by the US today, only because the gov. is shia.
    US policies is a mess!

  9. BiBiJon says:

    kooshy says:
    January 31, 2014 at 1:04 pm

    Thanks for the kind words in the previous thread.

    I also think there is salami slicing going on, and I think it started right back when Obama first got into office in 2008.

    His agenda was clear enough to Israel and KSA. Recall how both KSA and Netanyahu started to undermine him from the get go. They both knew Obama’s “Iran manufacturing nukes” was no red line at all. So was “if we see CW being moved/used by Assad” no red line. In both cases he had deliberately set a bar he was confident Iran, and later Syria would not cross. But, it did buy him time to deal with domestic hawks, Clinton, and Ross, etc. by giving them enough latitude (Afghan surge, Russia rsset, Libya, and various re-groupings of the Syria opposition coalition) to destroy their own credibility on foreign policy.

    On Syria, however, on the occasion of the second false flag on August 21st, he gambled and he won. You see, he invited AIPAC to go full force to mobilize congress when he knew perfectly well public opinion counter currents. The result, a major drubbing for AIPAC soon after the drubbing they got over Hagel confirmation. He might have looked awkward, but to his Democratic base at least he didn’t start another war. Unfortunately, he had to keep Kerry in the dark for the ruse to work, but I’m sure Kerry will get over it.

    The objective was/is a soft landing for KSA and Israel to the extent possible once the salami (US-Iran rapprochement) is fully sliced: no more KSA instigation of jihadism in the region, no more Israeli occupation of Palestine, and pivot to dual empowerment of Iran and Turkey as vanguards of US interests in MENA in a way that does not antagonize Russia and China.

    Of course there are lots of bumps in the road still, but the end of the salami is clear already.

  10. James Canning says:

    Obama may well be aware he blundered in 2011 by saying “Assad must go”.

  11. James Canning says:

    In the Financial Times today, Gideon Rachman discusses the dangerous “day-dream” of the illegal settlers in the West Bank, that Israel can annex the WB.

  12. James Canning says:


    Obama wants to sell or rent Apache attack helicopters to Iraq, in order to help Iraq fight al-Qaeda. The deal may total more than $6 billion.

  13. James Canning says:


    Most if not all EU leaders would like to see Israel end the occupation of Palestine.

  14. James Canning says:


    US policy is not intended to benefit al-Qaeda. I assume you know that.

  15. James Canning says:

    “Why did Saudi Arabia buy Chinese missiles?”, is a story at today.

  16. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    January 31, 2014 at 2:00 pm


    But consider that when a few thousand Lebanese were murdered by Israel in 2006, nary a peep came out of EU states; collectively or from individual leaders.

    When the Iranian Counter-Intelligence busted the attempt by a Jewish Iranian to recruit other Jews to spy for Israel and arrests were made in Shiraz; EU leaders could not contain their anger and frustration….

    As long as UK stands on the “Right Side of the United States” she will be involved in a stupid religious war.

  17. nico says:

    James Canning says:
    “Most if not all EU leaders would like to see Israel end the occupation of Palestine”

    Nonsensical statement.
    EU leaders are New World Order mafia stooges.
    That is the old western freemasonic hateist alliance with Judaism and Zionism to destroy Islam and Christianity.
    Capitalism, individualism and egoism is their western religion.
    The end of social cohesion in all form be it the family, the nation or religion.
    That is the so called liberal progressive struggle against the so called reactionary tradition.

    Clearly those western liberal progressive or so called in their glorious time, now called the egoist immoral materialists in the current time of ideologic decadence and degeneration.

    Those so called Western atheist and liberal progressives are against religion at a fundamental level of trancendency and homocentrism.
    This is thus just natural for them to be allied with Jews and Judaism.
    Judaism is at a fundamental level the antithesis of Islam and Christianity.
    It is a racialist blood inherited feature as well as a ideological and religious supremacism against the gentile.
    Like the gay lobby they are all in league to destroy the christian and traditional identity.
    No need to elaborate further I guess.

    As a conclusion, you should give more a focus on that western freemasonic atheist degenerate movement.
    THEY are the center and leading the current western regimes.
    The Jewish lobby is only a symbiot.

    YOUR problem is that you refuse to see your own deficiencies and look yourself in a mirror.

    No need to say that there is no good or bad guy.
    The progressive and the traditionalists have both qualities and defficiencies.
    The issue is the the so called materialist and liberal progressive hold the western regimes in their hane flr quite a while.
    And power lead to corruption
    Time for the wheel to turn and those degenerate regimes to be chased away for a period of time before they come back cleansed and with a little more humility.

  18. kooshy says:

    BiBiJon says:
    January 31, 2014 at 1:48 pm

    Agreed, Since 2007 NIE I always thought the American military and her associated intelligence services have refused to be drown in to a new major military engagement, and I think that basically what has prevented any new major war.
    More importantly since this last August for the first time US congress under pressure from public opinion has backed off supporting a new military engagement. The congress under pressure from public and refusal of US military to be ordered to yet another no end war has in a major way relived the Obama administration from the continued pressure she was receiving from the AIPAC/ KSA through their political and financial arms in the US media. This along with a new softer shift from Tehran has made an opportunity for the US administration to use a salami slicing technique along with double talks to somewhat roll back the dangerous clime she had put herself in. again hopefully on the surface acquisitions double talks threats will continue off and on, but in the meantime we should see the salami of war wishers is getting chopped off slice by slice.

  19. Karl.. says:


    “Nonsensical statement.”

    Exactly, west are so tied up with Israel on all areas.
    West couldnt care less about the occupation or what Israel does.

  20. BiBiJon says:

    Don’t miss Hilary on VoA at 1:49

  21. Don Bacon says:

    BiBiJon says:
    January 31, 2014 at 1:48 pm

    I’s be interested in any evidence you might furnish to back up your ruminations on Obama’s alleged masterful domination of the alleged US Iran strategy. That is, anything that would temper my opinion that Obama is a bumbling fool, a man without any vision, a mere captive of events, in this case of Ruhani’s masterful diplomacy.

  22. BiBiJon says:

    Don Bacon says:
    January 31, 2014 at 4:26 pm

    Aptly put, ruminations, and nothing more. However food for thought, thought out the box, and a possibility to consider.

    What may manifest outwardly as bumbling and indecisive, may in fact be a case of Obama keeping various options open.

    But it has come to pass that nobody, not even a General Petraeus could countenance Netanyahuism see ttp://

    Also, it should be clear nobody wants to see Bandar Jihadism infecting their Muslim populations. Imagine Russia or India with the third largest population of Muslims, at over 177 million, getting ‘Bandered’.

    The project for a new American century crashed and burned in Iraq. Something had to take it’s place. Realignment with Iran seemed obvious, though the Lobby had to be dealt with first.

    Obama pulled in the hawks in his cabinet, “keep your enemies closer”, and played a game that if intentional, was nothing short of masterful.

    Perhaps Obama sacrificed looking weak for the prize of perfect timing.

    That is the essence of my conjecture.

  23. BiBiJon says:

    James Canning says:
    January 31, 2014 at 2:37 pm

    “Why did Saudi Arabia buy Chinese missiles?”

    My oh my. Jeffrey Lewis, the director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, has no problem gloating over “nuclear capable” missiles in the hands of Saudis, and even drools over the possibility of Iran turning into glass.

    “the [Saudi] Strategic Missile Force is another reminder to the United States that Saudi Arabia can look out for number one if negotiations with Iran don’t pan out. If those talks collapse, who knows what we’re likely to start seeing in glass cases.”

    James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies has a proliferation, mushroom cloud enthusiast as a director! Now you know with this level of bias, prejudice, and rank hypocrisy, every word Lewis has ever written on Iran has been nothing but scaremongering drivel.

    This has to top the degenerate discourse of a fading empire.

  24. Don Bacon says:

    BiBiJon says:
    January 31, 2014 at 5:02 pm
    Obama pulled in the hawks in his cabinet, “keep your enemies closer”, and played a game that if intentional, was nothing short of masterful. Perhaps Obama sacrificed looking weak for the prize of perfect timing.

    I love me some good subtle satire and a good laugh. Thanks. The last line particularly was masterful. (ooops)

    Now we return to our regularly scheduled program, the world according to Smith. Smith?

  25. James Canning says:


    I do not expect Saudi Arabia to be firing any missiles at Iran, whether Chinese or otherwise. Unless Iran attacked first, which I think is highly unlikely.

  26. BiBiJon says:

    Don Bacon says:
    January 31, 2014 at 5:36 pm

    I know you don’t want to discuss this seriously. The bumbling fool, the blind leader from behind laid out his preferred approach in the beginning, did he not?

    5 years later what is left of the oppositionists to his plans?

    How coherent are they sounding now? and ttp://

    Rouhani is no more a clever operative than Ahmadinejad was, and remember the bilateral talks in Oman predate Rouhani’s election, although as SL’s representative to NSC, Rouhani must have been in on the new paradigm being formed. This is not, however IMO, a personality thing, it is policy thing, hashed out by career civil servants, intelligence and military folk.

  27. BiBiJon says:

    James Canning says:
    January 31, 2014 at 5:43 pm

    “I do not expect Saudi Arabia to be firing any missiles at Iran, whether Chinese or otherwise.”

    Soon as banks open on Monday, I’m going to deposit that. Thanks.

  28. Fiorangela says:

    Yet even a former Obama adviser on Iran has suggested that more sanctions may well be inevitable. Speaking as the interim talks were getting under way, Gary Samore, the White House coordinator for weapons of mass destruction during Obama’s first term, told reporters: “I fear that one of the reasons why these negotiations will not proceed to a comprehensive agreement is that the Supreme Leader may very well miscalculate and believe Iran is in a stronger position than it really is, and it may be necessary for the United States and its allies to proceed with additional sanctions before he recognizes the need to make any really significant concessions.”

    Iran nuclear talks: Reasons to be pessimistic |

    Samore would say that, of course; it’s what the Netanyahu script requires.

    But the United States has other interests — it needs help in Afghanistan, Syria, and Pakistan, the latter of which Joseph Cirincione calls “the most dangerous state in the world”. Not Iran. Not North Korea. Pakistan is the most dangerous state in the world. And the US needs Iranian help to tame it, and USA needs help in Afghanistan to protect its dams projects as well as to buffer Pakistan.

    Samore’s problem is that his goggles focus on only one tiny point on the globe, and he conflates the “miscalculations” and pretensions of the leader of that pinpoint pariah state, who thinks he’s in a stronger position than he really is.

  29. BiBiJon says:

    how many dis-invitations can Zarif handle per week?

  30. kooshy says:

    BiBiJon says:
    January 31, 2014 at 9:25 pm

    “how many dis-invitations can Zarif handle per week?”

    As many as it takes to kill next day’s headline which may read like this

    “Iran envoy to UN says we did not agree to dismantle any equipment”
    Nowhere in JPA there is a mention of dismantling any equipment
    For the most part on voluntarily bases we simply are stopping production of higher level of enrichment that we currently no longer need.
    When asked if you are to reduce the number of your centrifuges he adamantly said “absolutely not”

    So if you have to convince an AIPAC bought congress of yours that Iran has agreed to dismantle her nuclear program, but on the other hand you are facing a sovereign self-interest nation of 80 million who are not even willing to let you talk about taking any of their international rights, what would you do? Well in this case you tell your state departments deny the pass and make any BS you can. Not very clean and convincing but at the end of the day what other BS would be better? None- since everybody knows they have to settle for a BS.

  31. Karl.. says:

    Kerry threat Syria again..

    Meanwhile the neo-nazis in Ukraine want more help from the US and EU.

  32. Fiorangela says:

    kooshy, Kerry is much more ambitious than just distracting from the loggerhead between Iranian sovereign rights and the _____ (fill in the adjective) demands of Netanyahu the Psychopath.

    Kerry is in Munich. It is 1938, and Ukraine is within the grasp of the Disaster Capitalists.

    In 1932-33, when Stalin and Bolsheviks killed 3 million Ukrainians and Russians, FDR partnered with Stalin and Churchill in England’s bid to eliminate German constraints on England’s goal of maintaining and expanding its empire )according to A J P Taylor).

    Now that Russia has shaken off bolshevism and is attempting a renaissance of Russian cultural values, Western disaster capitalists are once again on the hunt; Ukraine is the prey.

  33. Bussed-in Basiji says:

    The “salami” thing is a bunch of “balony”…(talk about “food for thought”…I’m gettin hungry)

    Which one is more likely?

    1. Somehow US elites- a whole bunch of em- figured out that continuing with Bibi and Bandar is a dead end, then they figured out, hey let’s hook up with the hated Eye-ranians out of strategic reasons instead, then they began a coordinated multi-year secret strategy with double talk, BS peddling, etc. etc. the result of which will be a strategic realignment of biblical/Quranic proportions…all of this against the most powerful domestic political and business interests in the US who are the support of these politicians to begin with…


    2. US corporations (and European lapdogs) realized that if they continue pissing off Iran, they will lose the juicy, tasty Iranian petrodollars and Iran will either build its own stuff or buy it from BRICs and others.


    I’m gonna go make myself a halal “turkey breast” sandwich…

  34. BiBiJon says:

    Chopped liver?

    Bussed-in Basiji, if I knew I had to defend my every what-ifs, I’d stop wondering aloud so damned much.

    But, hey, at least I got Don’s bacon sizzling with reexamination of some of his assumptions until he realized there was no evidentiary meat to my hypothesis.

    But, to be fair, it is not as if anyone is refuting the “salami” with “evidence” either.

    As a matter of personal taste, I feel unsatisfied with those foods for thought that are composed of a single dish. The sofreh has to be colorful, for me.

    Rise of an out of control alQaida, the shooting of a Pakistani girl in the head for attending school, the savagery in Iraq, the cannibalism in Syria, etc. have exposed the mindless violence of Bandarism. Up to a point it was useful in confronting Iran. But, Iran didn’t fold, but the Jihadi disease was metastasizing all over the place.

    As Flynt would say, “hegemony is great if you can have it”, but after you’ve tried and failed spectacularly, then its time to change either tactics, alliances, or goals.

    The goals were never defined by Bandar, but by Netanyahu. And the guy has been an unmitigated disaster to his own messianic cause. As Jim Lobe documents, he has been polarizing American Jewry, Republican/Democratic paid-for support, and creating cleavages among European, Russian, and Chinese global interests vis-a-vis the US.

    You pose the question as an either, or. But, the complexities involved are best tackled by a set of ‘ands.’

    Iran and Iraq can flood the market and bring down oil prices down substantially. Russia would be OK with that if Iran spent $1.5 billion per month on Russian goods. It is potentially a workable economic paradigm.

    And, I think it jibes with Obama’s instincts. As does appointments of Hagel, Kerry, James Dobbins, etc.

    Conversely, far from being a masterful manipulator, Obama is just a copped liver side dish to run-away events. I sure don’t know which.

  35. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Is Syrian ‘Peace’ Conference Laying the Foundation for War?


  36. BiBiJon says:


    Just as undoubtedly, there will be a Russian veto, and if need be, a naval force to back that veto up.

    On dismantlement, Porter is reading too much into it. Kooshy has it right, the various slices of salami will not alter the agreement as a whole. Kerry can always claim later that some loosened screw constitutes dismantlement. The media will debate the meaning of loose screws for a while, and the world will move on.

  37. James Canning says:

    In a leader today, the Financial Times sharply rebukes Israel for growing its illegal colonies in the West Bank, “while ostensibly negotiating on the creation of a Palestinian state.”

  38. James Canning says:


    what possible “expansion” of the British Empire could have been envisioned, by any British leader, in 1932-33?

    Churchill feared that German re-armament would lead directly to an attempt to take control of Europe and plunge the world into another catastrophe.

  39. James Canning says:


    Interesting piece by Seth Zweifler that you just linked, regarding the cancellation of the invitation to Iran’s UN ambassdor, Mohammad Khazee. Who was supposed to address the World Affairs Council of Philadelphia. Did an Aipac stooge in the State Dept. cause this to happen?

  40. Kathleen says:

    So clear. Thank you Leveretts.

    Leveretts “The time for American elites to wake up to Middle Eastern realities before the United States and its Western allies face severe consequences for their strategic position in this vital part of the world is running out.”

    Sure does not look like these two ( Bill Kristol and Micheal Makovshy in my book war criminals) will be waking up any time soon?

    The Obama Complex
    Feb 10, 2014,

    “That leaves Israel. As a bipartisan group of national security experts convened by the Gemunder Center for Defense and Strategy of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs argued in a recent report: “The United States should move immediately to impose new sanctions and consider even tougher actions against Iran if no acceptable final agreement is in place 180 days after the JPA’s formal implementation on January 20. At that time, the United States should do nothing that would impinge upon Israel’s ability to decide what actions it must take  .  .  . and indeed should support Israel if it takes military action.”

  41. James Canning says:


    Jeffrey Lewis attacked the foolish senators who tried to get another sanctions bill passed recently. Lewis said: “The [interim agreement] documents are carefully worded to avoid prejudging the outcome of any negotiations [between P5+1 and Iran]”. What is “biased” about this phrasing?

  42. Kathleen says:

    ” Karl.. says:
    January 31, 2014 at 11:28 am

    Leverett’s show again that they are one of the best analysts on this topic.
    Although it could added more about the role of israel/aipac.”

    Karl this is what I have up on my fb page: The only thing I use fb for..keep getting the facts out. Screw the baby pictures, where I have traveled to and what I am eating. FB can be used to educate. And always put up links to Going To Tehran.

    “Senate Bill 1881 which is one more piece of warmongering legislation that would push the U.S. closer to a military confrontation with Iran has been stalled for now. But at the beginning of March the Aipac (American Israeli political action committee) conference takes place in D.C. I have been at this conference, the people who attend are well organized and very serious. While attending the conference thousands of Aipac attendees will also stand in very long lines to see their Reps and lobby for more sanctions against Iran and other legislation that they see benefiting Israel (which is not always the case). Often these pieces of legislation undermine Israel’s security based on the internationally recognized borders as well as U.S. National Security.

    The pressure that will be exerted on our Reps during this conference has generally been effective in the past. But things are changing. It is so important to keep contacting your Reps during this next month to counter this pressure and keep repeating NO NEW SANCTIONS ON IRAN. Let them know you support the approach the Obama administration is taking with Iran negotiations mostly based on facts. Please continue to contact your Reps

    Iran Sanctions Bill ‘On Ice’ As Momentum Fades In Senate

  43. James Canning says:


    Great post. And what a spectacle, with powerful American Jewish leaders in effect demanding Obama let Israel attack Iran. And Bill Kritol acting as their cheerleader.

  44. Karl.. says:

    Iranian fm will speak on german pro-war munich conference on sunday.

  45. BiBiJon says:

    James Canning says:
    February 1, 2014 at 2:00 pm

    I don’t know what he had in mind when he was emailing ThinkProgress what he thinks about the interim deal. But I do know that Mr. nonproliferation director was musing about the following without a hint of alarm, and even with some tongue in cheek approval of:

    a) KSA has acquired potentially nuclear “flavored” medium range missiles.
    b) KSA will act outside international law to “look after number one.”
    c) KSA might attack Iran without US consent
    e) KSA is using said threats as a way of waging the US dog
    d) KSA might show nuclear warheads in a glass case.

    Jeffery omits to let his readers know that it was KSA money, oodles of it, that enabled Saddam to acquire and use SCUDs against Iranian cities. Only after Iran’s protests to the UN fell on deaf ears, did Iran develop a missile force. So Jefferey’s insinuation that it is Iran’s missiles, and/or aggressive intents that are motivating the Saudis to purchase missiles, is a flat out, 180 degrees, up is down narration of well-documented recent history.

    What really gets my goat about the Nonproliferation director, is that it is he and his cohorts’ baseless fear mongering that has created a boom in fear-induced proliferation. Heck of a nonproliferation effort, Jeffery!

    You will not find a single instance when Jeffery quotes IAEA, or ElBaradai as stating categorically that there has never been a shred of evidence that Iran was developing nuclear weapons. I wonder why?

  46. Karl.. says:

    Here we go again. This nonsense never ends.

    US gov. blame Iran for Al Qaeda ties.

    Now understand what kind of crazy propangada we would hear before a possible war on Iran..

  47. Smith says:

    How US is killing Iranians >>> The story of Wetlands of Sistan va Balochestan:

    What the super corrupt are doing in Iran for this issue?

  48. Colinjames says:

    Excellent excellent excellent piece. Thank you, authors, I welcome any and all cogent analysis of ME issues, vis a vis Iran and American/Western foreign policy especially. It’s not easy finding pieces like this from government officials (former or current) that don’t reek of propaganda and/or constructed from discredited narratives to begin with. That, or just straight saber rattling of dubious Neocon/Israeli origin dominate the conversation, even down to purportedly alternative media. Will be seeking more articles from you two, fo sho! Mahalo.

  49. fyi says:

    Smith says:

    February 1, 2014 at 3:45 pm

    The best solution is to buy the dam from Afghanistan and then demolish it.

    Iran could pay Afghanistan in oil or in cash in perpetuity for a couple of centuries.

    That dam is not doing a damn thing for Afghanistan; never will.

  50. Smith says:

    fyi says:
    February 1, 2014 at 5:08 pm

    Iran has already paid the price for that by feeding and keeping Afghans for over 3 decades now:

    When Americans leave, there will start an intense civil war there. It would not be difficult to find an excuse then and order IRIAF to take the dam out. Iran really has been left with no other option. Indians and Americans are building and financing more useless dams inside Afghanistan in order to cut off Iran’s water supply and damage Iran’s environment. There should be no mercy on this one. Enough is enough.

  51. James Canning says:


    I tend to doubt Jeffrey Lewis actually thinks there is any chance whatever that Saudi Arabia would attack Iran, with missiles. (On first-strike basis) Taking his suggestions with a grain of salt seems to be indicated.

  52. BiBiJon says:


    You being able to read his mind, or should I say ‘taste his mind to see if it needs a grain or two of salt’, why don’t you do me a favor and tell me what it is he means by his closing paragraph:

    “Highlighting the Strategic Missile Force is another reminder to the United States that Saudi Arabia can look out for number one if negotiations with Iran don’t pan out. If those talks collapse, who knows what we’re likely to start seeing in glass cases.”

  53. Fiorangela says:

    James Canning says:
    February 1, 2014 at 1:35 pm

    “Churchill feared that German re-armament would lead directly to an attempt to take control of Europe and plunge the world into another catastrophe.”

    = = =
    Churchill was wrong on both counts, as his advisors tried to convince him.

    A J P Taylor cites RAND economist Burton H. Klein’s study of Germany’s economic preparations for war to demonstrate that Hitler was more concerned with keeping the support of the German public by investing in roads, bridges, and other civilian infrastructure; that is what brought prosperity to the German economy. Klein says that “rearmament was largely a myth.”

    Hitler told British and other leaders that Germany was investing more than was actually the case, a form of deception opposite to the usual case (and mimicked by Saddam Hussein decades later).

    “Pretending to prepare for a great war and not in fact doing it was an essential part of Hitler’s political strategy; and those who sounded the alarm against him, such as Churchill, unwittingly did his work for him. … Most important of all, Hitler did not make large war preparations simply because his “concept of warfare did not require them”. “Rather he planned to solve Germany’s living-space problem in piecemeal fashion–by a series of small wars.”.2 This is the conclusion at which I also arrived independently from study of the political record, though I suspect that Hitler hoped to get by without war at all.”


    “Where the British relied on sea power, [Hitler] relied on guile. Far from wanting war, a general war was the last thing he wanted. He wanted the fruits of total victory without total war, and thanks to the stupidity of others [Churchill], he nearly got them.” The Origins of the Second World War, by A J P Taylor

    So —
    —“Rearmament was a myth”
    — Hitler had NO plans for a large war to conquer Europe, the world, Christianity, Civilization as we know it.
    — Churchill either stupidly or deliberately and therefore evilly failed to recognize these realities.

    One can say plenty of nasty things about Obama, but at least he had the integrity to remove the bust of Churchill from the Oval Office. The world would be a better place today if Churchill had never lived.

  54. Bussed-in Basiji says:


    If you weren’t such a childish dick, you could join the diplomatic corps or the intelligence ministry or the military or become a researcher at one of the unis or write editorials in one of the big newspapers and work on the issues that concern you- instead of asking what others are doing about such-and-such.

    But because you are an arrogant a-hole, you couldn’t stand working with other human beings who are less capable than you, for half a day.

    Kinda like your idol.

    See how that works.

    Inshallah you learned something today.

  55. Raad says:

    You are vulgar and a monoculture who cannot discuss anything without becoming abusive personally. Shame on you.

  56. nico says:

    Just to illustrate my previous post the following article from the Italian news site “Il Foglio” which (honestly) describe the situation in France.
    My take is that the same situation is true in the west. Poor us… Poor France. Call it decadence and degeneration.
    Though the protest and tension is specially important in France and some kind of violent public protest are change in of Governement is not to be excluded.
    Just remember the Putin Valdai speech…

    My (rough) translation here wity my comments in between ().
    The original article can be found here.

    “What they call secularism is the juridical formulation of a civil war won on one side and lost by the other. Republican France has subjugated Catholic France and Catholic has accepted it. Today we live the succession of that civil war.” Pierre Manent, co-founder of the magazine Commentaire, animator of the Raymond Aron Center, key author and intellectual regarding liberalism, and who has been studying various authors from Cicero to Adam Smith, he can have a suitable point of view to analyze that that appears by now as a schism in the western liberalism that goes up again to the two revolutions founders.
    In France the “enlightment” hated God, while American founders cut the church from the state to protect the first one from the second. In France that was the other way round

    ABCD secularists post showing on the wall of all schools, about obligatory courses of sexual education for six year-old children, reform projects for the calendar with the introduction of secularist days to the place of Catholic festivity, laws that gag free speech regarding protest against abortion, militant of the “Manif pour Tous” (against gay marriage) arrested because they protest in silence: France quivers from secularism fighting. Anne Coffinier, general manager of the (free masonic) Foundation for the school, has declared that France is returning to a sort of Petainism (Nazi ideology according to secularists and progressists). The appeal “One day a month without school” is causing a lot of absences in the schools and aims at fighting the Gender theory experimental project implemented in school by the education minister (who is by the way a jew, and officialy visited Israel last week… for what reason ? Is that justified for a French education minister ? By way of croonism his daughter has been also nominated as cultural attache at the French embassy in Israel…).
    The government is accused of wanting to impose the Gender theory from the kinder garden (!). An accusation that for the education minister Vincent Peillon says “is completely false.” (Suffice to see the project of books for kinder garden “Bob wear a dress” or “Hanna has two mothers” !).

    “The socialist government has given life to a new progressive ideology ” (my view is that it is not specially new or French or socialist. It is an atheist and western free masonic and atheist project taking root cebturies ago. Remember Max Stirner Egoism ?. In addition see the youtube video of Joe Biden speech about the Jews and the Gay Marriage…), tells Pierre Manent: “An ideology in which democracy has been completely emptied of meaning and is based upon a sequence of individual rights. Any common sense is lost. It deals with an aggressive vision of the equality and the liberty, the idea of a life without bonds with the public good/community. They only count on the individual rights and Desires. Some socialists think about being the forebearers of moral and ethic.

    These powers speak on behalf of a new man, who do not want to have anything to do with the true history of Europe, the long battle among the nations, the religions and the philosophical doctrines. Their only program is to preserve and to promote a new innocence. They brought the French public life to exctinction and the hate for the Catholic church and the message of the union for the country. There is anxiety in towns and in families, there is anger, discouragement.” The Femens, who also storm in the French churches with their iconoclastic and antichristian message. “Why are they not being pursued by police and justice ? France has turned to be fiercely anti christian.” According to Manent, this is not “positive secularism” of the American civil religion, neither “secularism preseving identity” of the European conservative but “opposition secularism”, militant and aggressive (I personnaly fail to see the difference. Maybe some are less advanced on their way toward full degeneration ?). “The French secularism has always been the expulsion of the church from the public space, a project that has been successfully offering a new moral code to the citizens”, Manent says. “And in this project, the church is conceived as enemy of the République.” (True but is also true in other European countries and in the US. That is the heart of the New secularist, progressive and World Order).

    The betrayed warning of Montesquieu in “The city of Man” the French sociologist has already explained the paradox of the west, where the refusal of religion and natural law in the name of the autonomy of government lead to the loss of the sense of humanity. “To hold the religion out of the public sphere weakens the nation and its conscience”, Manent tells us. “Democracy is not a polis but a mere claim of new rights. Minister Peillon has clearly told, as a professional philosopher before climbing to the government: ‘The French Revolution is not ended. “Ssecularism must become a religion that takes the place of the Catholic obscurantism”, Peillon says that “it is as a new birth, a transubstantiation that operates in the school and for the school, the new church with its new ministers, its new liturgy and its new tables of law”. In any other country of Europe the secularism was never place the objective to sweep away the religion and to impose the obligation of secularism to its citizens (according to me that is not true. The same dynamic is at play everywhere in the west and the west try to impose it to the world. Maybe the means differ but the end result are the same). And “a dangerous project, because as Montesquieu said, uniformity is sister of the despotism.”

  57. Cyrus says:

    What I find interesting is the punditry’s insistence that a Gorbachov-like character will be elected; ‘Is he the Iranian Gorbachov which will presage the fall of the IRI’ is pretty much the reaction to Rouhani as was to Khatami and Rafsanjani. The Cold War fixation and the inability to fundemantally come to terms with the IRI is always there.

  58. fyi says:

    Raad says:

    February 2, 2014 at 6:16 am

    He is not “monoculture” – he has no culture – “farhang” in Persian.

  59. fyi says:

    Cyrus says:

    February 2, 2014 at 7:16 am

    They Americans want to pursue their fantasy in Palestine – all the while paying no costs.

    That is, they wish for a cost-free foreign policy; well – they are not getting it with Iran and they won’t.

  60. Don Bacon says:


    news report:
    (Reuters) – President Barack Obama plans to travel to Saudi Arabia in March on a mission to smooth tensions with Washington’s main Arab ally over U.S. policy on Iran’s nuclear program and the civil war in Syria, a newspaper reported.

  61. James Canning says:


    When you say the Americans want to “pursue their fantasy”, do you mean you think most Americans support the illegal colonies of Jews Israel is growing in the West Bank?

    Many Americans, if not most, do not even know those colonies exist.

  62. James Canning says:


    The “inability” to “come to terms” with the current government of Iran, on the part of “the punditry” in the US, has a great deal to do with the ISRAEL LOBBY which tends to want to block any improvement in relations between the US and Iran. To “protect” Israel – – meaning, to enable continuing growth of the illegal colonies of Jews in the West Bank.

    The core of the matter is ISRAEL/PALESTINE. Very different from what obtained during the Cold War.

  63. James Canning says:


    Hitler intended all along to take for Germany huge portions of the Soviet Union. And all of Poland, Czechoslovakia, and the Baltics. This meant general European war, and world war. Churchill was correct about what German re-armament meant.

  64. James Canning says:


    You might enjoy reading “Making Friends with Hitler – – Lord Londonderry, the Nazis and the Road to War”, by Ian Kershaw. Great deal of detail about just what was planned by variouus leading Nazis.

  65. Richard Steven Hack says:

    State Dept Assures Israel: War Likely if Iran Talks Fail

    “I’m not predicting that we would take military action right away,” Harf said. “It’s more of a broad statement that, look, if we can’t get this done diplomatically in six months or a year or at any time, we will – we are committed to resolving it. And that involves less durable and, quite frankly, riskier actions…There are only a few scenarios that come out of this: Either we resolve it diplomatically or we resolve it a different way. It’s just common sense that that different way could involve – is likely to involve military action.”

  66. Fiorangela says:

    nico says:
    February 2, 2014 at 6:41 am

    nico, You may be interested in these lectures by Ruth Harris on the Dreyfuss Affair. Harris reveals that a key element of the tensions was the German-French character of Alsace-Lorraine, which Germany acquired after Napoleon III’s ill-conceived war against Prussia, and the civil war that afflicted France when the French lost that adventure.

    Harris also reveals that the unfortunate situation of Lt. Dreyfuss could have been resolved quietly and quickly through bureaucratic processes, and that a French Protestant official, Augustine Scheurer-Kerstner, was eager to do just that. However, a Jewish banker, Joseph Reinach, had a larger agenda, in pursuit of which he co-opted Scheurer and dragged out the affair, drawing in monarchist Frenchmen, odd-ball Italian and French women and spiritualists, and Emile Zola. Reinach achieved his goals: he sullied the (already dodgy?) reputation of the Jesuits and irremediably sundered the relationship between French culture and Roman Catholicism.

    Recall that Theodor Herzl’s ‘experience’ of the humiliation of Alfred Dreyfuss was said to have been the motivation behind Herzl’s “Der Judenstaat” and zionism — the requirement that Jews have a state of their own. That’s an interesting tabloid assessment, and Herzl was a journalist of middling ability, but it’s not historically accurate. The tabloid version fails to account for the fact that for years before the Dreyfuss affair Herzl had negotiated with Abdul Hamid II for a piece of the Ottoman sultan’s penurious empire in Palestine to be given for Jewish colonization in exchange for relief of Turkish debts. Over the course of a decade the negotiations bore no fruit. The tabloid version also fails to mention that over an equal span of time Herzl petitioned the German chancellor to assist the Jewish people to “exodus” from Germany to the “promised land” in Palestine.

  67. kooshy says:

    Cyrus says:
    February 2, 2014 at 7:16 am

    Actually most expatriates who initially were so excited and thought that Rouhani like Gorbacheve will “dismantle” the principles and structures of IRI are more and more becoming disappointed and frustrated even though he did facilitate an air of less hostilities with their idol of freedom and democracy US. This is the same group who were deep supporters of the green movement based on same false hope, many who I know for months were wearing a symbolic “cheap” green band on their wriest.

    Meaning of Cheap here
    1-cheap meaning a value less thinking
    2-Cheap meaning not willing to spend for what your hopes are
    3-Cheap meaning hoping that the opposing view will not detect your through intentions.

  68. James Canning says:


    We should remember that Grobachev wanted to save the Soviet Union. By undertaking necessary reforms.

  69. kooshy says:

    Richard Steven Hack says:
    February 2, 2014 at 2:11 pm

    Rich, no one is worried of that, there is no balls left for any of that, the right Persian word for current state of US military will to attack Iran is “AKHTEH” that means the balls were cut off

  70. James Canning says:


    Jeffrey Lewis seems to have suggested the Saudis could and would obtain nukes, if Iran tries to build them? Perhaps someone else can offer a take.

  71. kooshy says:

    Sorry dropped the related story and link

    Richard Steven Hack says:
    February 2, 2014 at 2:11 pm

    Rich, no one is worried of that, there is no balls left for any of that, the right Persian word for current state of US military will to attack Iran is “AKHTEH” that means the balls were cut off

    “Iranian Defense Minister Brigadier General Hossein Dehqan says global arrogant powers are fearful of the Islamic Republic’s deterrence might.”

  72. Bussed-in Basiji says:


    You got it all wrong. If you look at Smith’s posts you will see vulgarity, insults- general and specific- and abusive language at its most extreme.

    Just ask anyone on this forum who has challenged him on any- even minor- point.

    Maybe you haven’t been keeping up with the forum and your negative reaction to my post is related to something else.

    I responded to his very first post very nicely and challenged him on some minor matter. His response was an insult.

    I respond to each person the way they address me.

    “Wie man in den Wald hineinruft, so schallt es zurueck”.

    Tell me if you want me to translate for you.

    So much for “monoculture”…

    Wa amaa, the difference between me and fyi is that I have real “farhang”/culture borne out a great life of action actually living in different cultures around the world- not the stale, old, arrogant urban elitism of racist, classist old Iranians masquerading as educated, “civilized” sophistication borne out a life based on reading some books in translation and saving one’s own skin above else.

    Fyi is old Iranian monoculture masquerading as educated sophistication. I think people like BibiJon, kooshy, M Ali, UU, others and yours truly are the ones here with real “culture”- “multi-culture” in the best sense of the word.

    Smith’s tragedy is that he is very intelligent but unfortunately also very arrogant.

    His IQ is 147 however his EQ is 0.

    Wouldn’t it be nice if he could work on the issues and problems he identifies and actually change some of the things he finds objectionable (many of which I find objectionable as well).

    The problem is that his Daddy and Mommy didn’t teach him how to interact with other human beings. They didn’t teach him how to be humble towards people less capable than oneself and how to guide such people. They didn’t teach him that intelligence alone is not enough to be successful in life.

    This Raad-jan is a tragedy. A big tragedy. A wasted life. I wish Smith would and could contribute to the society that needs intelligent people like him (assuming he’s not posting from Haifa).

    I wish he would get off from behind the computer and go work somewhere for a couple of years- join the military, go on a adventure trip- something. Learn to interact with other human beings.

    I told him following the example of his idol- pontificating while sitting behind the screen based on false historical analogies read from second-rate translations- will only lead to badbakhti. Go out and test yourself in the real world. Put your precious life in danger and then experience what wisdom the Universe bestows on you.

    In the words of Jimi Hendrix “…are you experienced,have you ever been experienced…”

    If you can just get your mind together
    uh-then come on across to me
    We’ll hold hands and then we’ll watch the sunrise
    From the bottom of the sea
    But first, are you experienced?
    Uh-have you ever been experienced-uh?
    Well, I have
    (Well) I know, I know, you’ll probably scream and cry
    that your little world won’t let you go
    But who in your measly little world, (-uh)
    are you tryin’ to prove to that you’re
    made out of gold and-uh, can’t be sold
    So-uh, are you experienced?
    Have you ever been experienced? (-uh)
    Well, I have
    Uh, let me prove it to you, yeah
    Trumpets and violins I can-uh, hear in the distance
    I think they’re callin’ our name
    Maybe now you can’t hear them,
    but you will, ha-ha, if you just
    take hold of my hand
    Ohhh, but are you experienced?
    Have you ever been experienced?
    Not necessarily stoned, but beautiful

  73. Fiorangela says:

    James Canning, Ian Kershaw is a useful idiot for maintaining England’s delusions of innocence and grandeur and the Anglophilic notion that Churchill had a core of heroism buried under his layers of flab and debauchery. Most Anglo histories of WWII that I have read go to great lengths to conceal the fact that England never ‘won’ a war using only Englishmen — much of the Anglo fighting force has been drawn from its colonies; and the English habitually achieve “victory” by starving or carpetbombing masses of the adversary’s civilian population; that is, England — and the USA — achieve their “victories” not by fighting mano a mano on a military field of battle but by decimating civilian populations. That is what brought about German capitulation in WWI; that is how US fought in Viet Nam; that is how the overthrow of Hitler was achieved in WWII. And make no mistake: the goal of the Anglo-zionist-American war against Germany had as its goal the overthrow of Hitler and Anglo-capitalist control of German resources, industrial and intellectual wealth and financial systems, the same goals as Anglo-zionist-US held wrt Japan, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and that they hold toward Iran and now Ukraine. (see Stephen Kinzer, “Overthrow: America’s Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq,” c. 2007).

    Regarding Hitler’s intentions, of which you are so certain based on your complete immersion in Anglo-zionist-American propaganda al la Kershaw, I can only offer feeble facts as ascertained by historians who have analyzed documents and evidence — i.e. Burton Klein as cited by A J P Taylor; former president Herbert Hoover who interviewed Hitler and Goering in 1938, shared his impressions with numerous European ambassadors and with Neville Chamberlain, and recorded their collected assessments in “Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover’s Secret History of the Second World War and Its Aftermath,” ed. George H. Nash; Max Hastings, not an historian at all but acclaimed as such by his Queen, for whom he is so intent on carrying the empire’s buckets that he occasionally allows a few drops of truth to spill forth. (David Irving & Mark Weber have done solid primary research but I have not consulted them for this comment.)

  74. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    February 2, 2014 at 1:45 pm

    You have to understand that the dominant ethnicities in US have taken an essentially religious position in support of the Jewish fantasies in Palestine; in effect turning US into the Jewish Champion in the sense of Medieval knights.

    They dominant factions in US – regardless of social class – are committed to varying degrees to this position; that their position has brought US into war with Islam is irrelevant to them – they think they can prevail against Islam.

    The King and the denizens of his halls are all mad as hatters; the English Baron is not but he still hopes for sanity to prevail in the Court of the Mad King. That Baron will be disappointed.

    At the moment, the most progress that could be made is by the Court of Mad King to acknowledge that US is in a religious war with Islam.

    Once that fact is accepted, the next productive step will be the enactment of a 99-year old cease-fire across various war fronts.

    The time for Permanent Peace is both passed and has not yet come.

    [US and EU have sunk enormous resources in their pursuit of the Jewish fantasies in Palestine to declare that effort to have been a colossal strategic and religious mistake.

    They cannot be persuaded to stop their support, but they may be persuaded, in time, to accept a cease fire.]

  75. Fiorangela says:

    James Canning says: February 2, 2014 at 1:53 pm

    “Hitler intended all along to take for Germany huge portions of the Soviet Union. And all of Poland, Czechoslovakia, and the Baltics. This meant general European war, and world war. Churchill was correct about what German re-armament meant.”

    = = =

    What part of

    “Most important of all, Hitler did not make large war preparations simply because his “concept of warfare did not require them”. “Rather he planned to solve Germany’s living-space problem in piecemeal fashion–by a series of small wars.”.2 This is the conclusion at which I also arrived independently from study of the political record, though I suspect that Hitler hoped to get by without war at all. . . . Where the British relied on sea power, [Hitler] relied on guile. Far from wanting war, a general war was the last thing he wanted. He wanted the fruits of total victory without total war, and thanks to the stupidity of others [Churchill], he nearly got them.”

    do you not understand?

  76. Fiorangela says:

    “In 1936, according to Churchill, two independent estimates placed German rearmament expenditure at an annual rate of 12 thousand million marks.1 The actual figure was under 5 thousand million.”

    1. Churchill, The Second World War, i, 226

    = = =

    “Hitler himself asserted that the Nazi government had spent 90 thousand million marks on armaments before the outbreak of war. In fact total German government expenditure, war and nonwar, did not amount to much more than this between 1933 and 1938. Rearmament alone cost about 40 thousand million marks in the six fiscal years ending 31 March 1939, and about 50 thousand millions up to the outbreak of war.” 1.

    1. Burton Klein, 17
    = = =

    (Origins of World War Two, A. J. P. Taylor, xix –

    There is a fascinating discussion of how Hitler was able to trick Churchill into believing that Germany was manufacturing more armaments than it really was, a set of circumstances that is applicable to current thinking about US-Iran relations.

    Taylor writes, “In the German government were accused by many British people of secretly accelerating naval building without the approval of the Reichstag. The accusation was probably untrue but it left a permanent legacy of suspicion that the Germans would do it again . . . Hitler encouraged this suspicion [i.e. rearmament ambiguity -ed.] and exploited it.” p. xxi

  77. kooshy says:

    همه هنر امام خمینی(ره) این بود که به تأسی از اسوه بزرگ الهی – پیامبر اعظم(ص)- بندگی حق و سرنسپردن به باطل و طاغوت‌ها را با موفقیت به محک آزمون گذاشت. امام قدم به قدم، راهبرد «ما می‌توانیم» را به اجرا گذاشت و از یک ملت تحقیر شده که ناتوانی‌اش را با ناتوانی در ساختن لولهنگ و آفتابه به رخ می‌کشیدند، ملتی دارای اراده و جسارت و خطرپذیر و مجاهد ساخت. این معجزه احیاگری در مقیاس احیای یک ملت را می‌شود زیر ذره‌بین مطالعات اندیشمندان علوم اجتماعی و سیاسی گذاشت
    BIB Jaan

    Constantly only pointing and putting down a nation’s capabilities and only pointing to negativities is with a long term agenda of killing hope and future, it is a true and old form of colonialism, that some on this forum perusing on some traitorous agenda, that is the reason I don’t believe he is any more clever than he himself think he is.

    In our own good Old Persian “he can put his intelligence on Dare-Kouzeheh and drink water from it” or in other words his intelligence “be dared Amash Manosheh Amir Mekhoreh”

  78. Fiorangela says:

    “In 1938-39, the last peacetime year, Germany spent on armament about 15% of her gross national product. The British proportion was almost exactly the same. German expenditure on armaments was actually cut down after Munich and remained at this lower level, so that British production of aeroplanes, for example, was way ahead of German by 1940. When war broke out in 1939, Germany had 1450 modern fighter planes and 800 bombers; Great Britain and France had 950 fighters and 1300 bombers. The Germans had 3500 tanks; Great Britain and France had 8850.1 In each case Allied intelligence estimated German strength at more than twice the true figure. As usual, Hitler was thought to have planned and prepared for a great war. In fact, he had not.” Taylor, p. xxi

  79. Karl.. says:

    February 2, 2014 at 2:11 pm

    Likewise the threats against Syria is back, seems like US, Israel plotting something..

  80. Fiorangela says:


    Fiorangela says: February 2, 2014 at 4:44 pm

    ““In the German government were accused by many British —”


    ““In 1909 the German government were accused by many British – – -”

    The point is that Hitler’s tactic of allowing adversaries to think that Germany was arming at a greater rate than it was played upon the habits and customs prevalent up to that time: it had been the practice of government to UNDER-state the real extent of it weaponization. Hitler OVER-stated Germany’s rearmament, “a new device that took everyone in.”

  81. James Canning says:


    Hitler had hoped Britain would be amenable to his plan for Germany to annex huges swathes of territory belonging to other countries. On piecemeal basis, as you said earlier.

    After the war, Churchill sometimes told close relations that he was not sure that fighting the war had been worth the cost. But he on further thought concluded that Britain had no choice but to fight.

    My own view is that Hitler was a madman and he would have tried to take control of all of Europe, and more. With time.

  82. James Canning says:


    Suppose Britain told Germany to go ahead and annex Czechoslovakia and Poland. Do you think Germany would have stopped with that? Or would it have caused the Soviet Union and France to go to war with Germany, bringing Britain in?

  83. James Canning says:


    Surely you are aware that the German Empire tried to starve Britain into submission, during the First World War. This blunder briught the US into the war and caused Germany’s defeat.

  84. James Canning says:


    Ian Kershaw is rather sympathetic toward many of the British leaders who tried to foster good relations with Germany, to avoid another catastrophe. A number of dukes and other grandees were among these leaders. And there was a serious question whether the Soviet Union or Germany posed the greater threat.

  85. Rd. says:

    BiBiJon says:

    “a) KSA has acquired potentially nuclear “flavored” medium range missiles.
    b) KSA will act outside international law to “look after number one.”
    c) KSA might attack Iran without US consent

    I wonder why?”

    There used to be the talk of mad dog izis ready to attack Iran.. any moment now!!! the planes are in the air.. any seconds.. the lying Shepard is not gaining traction. so now we have the mad ksa ready with nukes to attack!!!..

    It is typical of the FP whores.. sorry mean analyst in DC…

  86. Fiorangela says:

    James Canning says:
    February 2, 2014 at 5:43 pm

    “Surely you are aware that the German Empire tried to starve Britain into submission, during the First World War. This blunder briught the US into the war and caused Germany’s defeat.”

    = =

    Please don’t insult my intelligence, James.

    The British National Archives contain the statement of British military leaders early in WWI who harumphed that, while it was contrary to all their values, the British people were compelled to impose a total blockade on Germany. Such a blockade was imposed, and maintained, causing the deaths of approximately 800,000 German civilians, including children, of course.

    In a conversation about his book about the Atlantic, Simon Winchester said that the Atlantic Ocean was in some way responsible for the ‘birth’ of Israel in Palestine, since Chaim Weizmann aided the British government in arming British ship and maintaining the blockade, and in gratitude, Lord Balfour gave Baron Rothschild the 1917 Balfour Declaration — “looking with favor on a homeland for Jews in Palestine.”

    The blockade on Germany, which, contrary to all previous rules of modern warfare included foodstuffs, did NOT end when Germany surrendered in November 1918; Allied powers convened in France decreed that the blockade must remain in place until Germany signed the Versailles and other treaties hat, as most historians agree, were a key factor. C. Paul Vincent notes that as many as 35 thousand more German civilians died in the eight or nine months between the November armistice and Germany’s capitulation to the Treaty. see The Politics of Hunger: The Allied Blockade of Germany 1915-1919.

    But that was not the only famine the British/Allies caused in their greed for empire. In “The Great Famine and Genocide in Persia, 1917-1919,” Mohammad Gholi Majd details how British sequestration of Persian foodstuffs to feed British troops caused famine deaths of as many as 11 million Persians. Majd observes that it took almost fifty years for Iran to achieve the population it lost in World War I. Iran was a neutral in that war!

    I am not aware of any historian of World War II who places the proper emphasis on that famine loss that the German people suffered in World War I. It was a major factor in Hitler’s and indeed in all German leadership’s thinking: Never Again would the German people be made vulnerable to a blockade that would force them to watch their women and children starve to death; they would acquire Lebensraum in fertile regions out of reach of British naval assets.

    When I hear so many of the leaders of my country gloat at their ‘success’ at strangling Iran, I ask myself what kind of monsters these are who lead the nation that Jefferson & Madison pledged “their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor” to establish. I am ashamed to be an American if to be an American means to rejoice in starving another, innocent, people.

    Besides, the tactic is stupid, almost as stupid as it is immoral.

  87. Fiorangela says:

    James Canning says:
    February 2, 2014 at 5:39 pm

    “Suppose Britain told Germany to go ahead and annex Czechoslovakia and Poland. Do you think Germany would have stopped with that? Or would it have caused the Soviet Union and France to go to war with Germany, bringing Britain in?”

    = = =

    Your comment implies that England had some Master of the Universe role to play. Who assigned it that role?

  88. Fiorangela says:


    “My own view is that Hitler was a madman and he would have tried to take control of all of Europe, and more. With time.”

    = = =
    Such a well-informed view, arrived at after intense inquiry and critical analysis, no doubt. Plus, you appear to be very proud of your view.

    Tell me, James, When did Hitler become a madman?

  89. Don Bacon says:

    Starving a population is something the Brits did well, as in Ireland.

  90. Sakineh Bagoom says:

    Oh no Don. The Brits did a much better job in Iran between 1917 and 1919 Persian famine genocie killing almost a third of the population.
    Look it up.

  91. BiBiJon says:

    Rd. says:
    February 2, 2014 at 5:53 pm

    Well yes, ForeignPolicy Magazine is home to any and every piece of wishful, self-serving nonsense the editors can get a hold of in this echo chamber almost exclusive to delusional pundits.

    But, Jeffery Lewis, who is supposed to labor for nonproliferation, pens a piece about the most dictatorial, of dictatorial regimes, KSA, the first to recognize the Taliban rule over Afghanistan, the birth country of 15 out of 19 9/11 hijackers, who has acquired a strategic missile force, which may have been augmented by nuclear warheads.

    Read his piece as many times as one’s stomach allows, and you will not detect the slightest hint of alarm. To the director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, the prospects of the financier of Jihadism (1), KSA, getting nukes does not warrant an urgent call to IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano to do something. Jeffery Lewis who in the past has waxed fantod about the proliferation domino effect in the region of Iran acquiring nukes, displays no such qualms about KSA acquiring them. Indeed, he even seems to look forward to seeing the Saudi nukes in a glass box for public display as a deterrent to Iran independent of US wishes/stratagems. Does the king of nerds, Jeffery Lewis, wonder when will Oman feel the need to deter KSA?

    When Leveretts talk about an “imperial power in decline whose foreign policy debate has become increasingly detached from reality” I wonder if there’s not a competition in the punditocracy to prove Leveretts’ point. IS there a ‘biggest moron’ prize? Is there a ‘blinder than a bat’ plaque in a glass case that Jeffery is competing for?

    And, if the Levertts’ reading of “history suggests that the consequences of such delusion are usually severe”, one wonders how directly responsible the nonproliferation pundits will be deemed in annals of history for having caused unbearable world-wide insecurity causing run-away, free-for-all proliferation.

    (1) see

  92. Mac says:

    The US and Iran are NATURAL ALLIES.

    The past 30 plus years are an anomaly and, as you spell out, unsustainable.


  93. khomeini says:

    Is this coincidence?

    Saudi mediation efforts fail and Al-Qaeda disowns ISIL.

  94. fyi says:

    Mac says:

    February 3, 2014 at 9:02 am

    I do not think so.

    The last time US did any thing beneficial for Iran was in 1948.

    Her interaction with Iran has been singularly unhelpful – or rather harmful – to Iran and the Iranian people, for the most part over 3 generations.

    Consider also that US and Iran do not share the same religious commitments; one is a Champion of Israel and the other that of Islam.

    US leaders do not give a fig about Muslim/Irani sentiment on the Al Haram Al Sharif.

    This will endure.

  95. fyi says:

    Don Bacon says:

    February 2, 2014 at 10:50 pm

    The English have, however, been quite successful at Nation-Building; something that US has failed since the days of Reconstruction.

    Burma, India, Malaysia, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Uruguay, Canada, Bahamas, Jamaica, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Iraq, Uganda, Sudan, Tanzania have all been British creations that have endured – and been successful to varying degrees.

  96. BiBiJon says:

    fyi says:
    February 3, 2014 at 10:19 am

    While there’s no denying there are religious sentiments out there, and there’s no denying that various zealots, and opportunists fallaciously took Huntington’s ‘clash of civilizations’ as a prescription/justification for their pre-existing evil designs, your oft expressed opinion runs counter to other considerations that powerfully shape state (not public) ways of dealing with the world, among them: survival.

    I’d be all ears if you can say why a clash with the Muslim world creates better chances of survival than co-existence does.

  97. BiBiJon says:


    The primary reason why UK, France and the US were convinced nonone but Assad had to be responsible for August 21st attack, was that none other than Assad had CW.

    Well, for your leisurely perusal:


  98. Smith says:

    Raad says:
    February 2, 2014 at 6:16 am

    He is incapable of rational thought and is averse to the process of science. He is the Shia equivalent of anti-science takfiris. A hypocrite who wants to use scientific products (he even uses computer and internet) like a cargo cult follower but who is not interested to learn science and model his life upon rationality required of a human being. Not even God with his several hundred invitations to human beings in Quran to think and contemplate has been been able to convince these hypocrites otherwise.

    He and his likes are mindless emotional biologic automatons incapable of introspection and thinking. Their lives is a hypocrisy of the highest order. They use French car engines, American antibiotics, German wheat, Japanese electronics, Korean phones, etc etc while deterring on religious grounds, the society around them from learning and questioning on the processes of science. The enmity between likes of me and likes of him is thousands of years old. And we are winning. They are on the path to extinction. Their contribution to the world are ‘jahl’ and darkness. Nothing more.

  99. Smith says:

    He was banished from his land since he was an Ahmadi in a “muslim” land:

    Is it not indicative of something being seriously wrong that no “muslim” of his stature in physics and mathematics has ever walked on earth? What is the problem? Are “muslims” a bunch of koodan, stupid and retarded communities? 17 million Jews produce several order of magnitude more scientists and inventors than the 1700 million “muslims”. What empirical theory can we derive from this factual and long standing observation? Anyone?

  100. Smith says:

    Mac says:
    February 3, 2014 at 9:02 am

    That is the most oxymoronic short paragraph, that I have read in a very long time.

  101. fyi says:

    BiBiJon says:

    February 3, 2014 at 11:22 am

    800 years ago, the Catholic Church realized that there was no margin in fighting Islam.

    Americans and Europeans, in their post-Christian phase, have yet to assimilate that understanding.

    To the extent that they willfully refuse to see that they are in a religious war, they are also Mad.

    To the extent that they see that they are in a religious war and continue it, they are Mad has a Hatter.

    Pity the empirical English that have thrown their lot with the Mad King.

  102. Bussed-in Basiji says:


    Again, you’re stuck in your own delusions about who people are and are not, not reality.

    Just FYI, I was using computers in the mid 1980s- you know at a time when your Daddy was shitting his diapers.

    Get off from behind your desk and starting interacting with other humans.

    It will teach you that you can’t say whatever you feel like about somebody who challenges one of your brilliant notions.

    And if you keep doing it in the abusive way that is your habit, then somebody some day will stick his fist down your throat- and then maybe you will have learned your lesson.

    But I’m guessing you prefer to stay seated behind your computer and have virtual crushes and father-figures, rather than real ones.

    Have fun…

  103. Bussed-in Basiji says:


    What you fail to understand- despite your IQ 147- is that many of the things that new scientists- of whatever persuasion- “discover” is based on the discoveries of older scientists- of whatever persuasion.

    No Jewish (Christian, Hindu, atheist…) Nobel Prize winners in the 20th without Muslim scientists in the west’s “dark ages”.

    Of course as somebody with an IQ of 147 this is clear as daylight for you, sorry to bother you with such obvious points…

    Anyway, this tired old thing about Jews versus Muslims is standard Islamophobic poison peddled by losers like yourself.

    With that last post of yours, the Haifa theory concerning your identity is gaining strength…stay tuned.

  104. Bussed-in Basiji says:

    “The enmity between likes of me and likes of him is thousands of years old. And we are winning. They are on the path to extinction. Their contribution to the world are ‘jahl’ and darkness. Nothing more.”

  105. Bussed-in Basiji says:


    Isn’t it interesting how he is portraying a nation that has the highest rate of scientific growth the whole planet, as being anti-science…

    What a major dick…

  106. James Canning says:


    Was the Pope “fighting Islam” when he organised the alliance that defeated the Ottoman Empire at Lepanto in 1571?

  107. James Canning says:


    I doubt Jeffrey Lewis thinks Saudi Arabia has nukes now or is about to obtain them.

  108. James Canning says:


    Hitler wanted Britain’s approval for his ambitions in the east (annexing Poland, Ukraine, etc).

  109. ikram ghouri says:

    History is full of intrigues and counter peace efforts. We need peace but poloticians make wars for what?
    America is dieing super power and wil make blunders after blunders. We need politicians and not bureaucrat politicians, politicians with vision and human respect.

  110. James Canning says:


    Is American support for Israel in fact a “religious commitment”? Or a reflection of immense economic and political power of Israel’s advocates in the US?

  111. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    February 3, 2014 at 1:46 pm


  112. Fiorangela says:

    Smith says:
    February 3, 2014 at 12:14 pm

    I’m confused.
    Never having won a Nobel prize, I can’t determine if your comparison of Iranians to “17 million Jews” makes the comparison in the biological, sociological, or religious category.

    Care to explain?

  113. James Canning says:


    I have indeed given a fair amount of thought to the origins of the Second World War, over more than five decades. I have met some of the British leaders directly involved in trying to make a deal with Hitler to avoid catastrophe.

  114. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    February 3, 2014 at 2:01 pm

    The distinction that you make is without merit.

    The late Osama Bin Ladin evidently considered US enemy of Islam.

    The Americans still refuse to pose the question: “Why?”

    Rest assured that US will carry any burden for Israel but not World War III.

    [US has no strategic interests among Muslim world that requires her to face and fight a religious war.

    That she is willing to do so is a testament to the depth of religious sentiment among misguided protestant Christians that control that state.]

  115. Fiorangela says:

    James Canning says:
    February 3, 2014 at 1:58 pm

    James, can you offer some sources to support your assertion?

  116. kooshy says:

    “Is it not indicative of something being seriously wrong that no “muslim” of his stature in physics and mathematics has ever walked on earth? What is the problem? Are “muslims” a bunch of koodan, stupid and retarded communities? 17 million Jews produce several order of magnitude more scientists and inventors than the 1700 million “muslims”. What empirical theory can we derive from this factual and long standing observation? Anyone?”

    The only empirical theory which can ever be driven from the usual garbage you post is that like yourself at the minimum you are not shamed of being a raciest, and again if like yourself, one uses your empirical method of dots connectivity, one will be left with no other choice other than to conclude your continued mental shield of hiding behind racism is only driven from where and what your tail is connected to.

  117. BiBiJon says:

    James Canning says:
    February 3, 2014 at 1:56 pm

    “I doubt Jeffrey Lewis thinks Saudi Arabia has nukes now or is about to obtain them.”

    Why write what wrote, then?

  118. James Canning says:


    Very good question. I’ve been pondering it for several days now.

  119. Smith says:

    Fiorangela says:
    February 3, 2014 at 2:04 pm

    Your sentence is not comprehensible. Could you rephrase it to a more comprehensible state?

    n.b. that I did not compare Iranians with Jews. Distortion of my question is not really appreciated. I compared the ENTIRE MUSLIM WORLD with the Jews. Iran is just a small part (less than 5%) of the Muslim world.

  120. BiBiJon says:

    fyi says:
    February 3, 2014 at 12:25 pm

    Thanks. Just to make sure I understood:

    You are saying the hypothesis of “religious war” is based on their being “mad,” especially because of the fact that it is not owned up to.

    Fine so far, but one more point to clarify, please. Is it the madness that presages religious war, or has the war caused the madness?

  121. fyi says:

    BiBiJon says:

    February 3, 2014 at 3:56 pm

    Men are Mad for they are made in the likeness of God – and to Human Reason – God is also Stark Raving Mad.

    However, not all men are mad all of the time.

    One has to accept the way emotion affect human decision-making.

  122. James Canning says:


    Delusional Evangelical Protestants do provide votes for aggressive advocates for Israel, within the US Congress. But the key element is wealth and power (and sophistication) of Jews in America.

    Christians in the US are not trying to eliminate the Muslim religion from countries, so that Christianity can replace it. But, some fanatical supporters of Israel want Jews to displace non-Jews, in the West Bank (occupied Palestine).

  123. James Canning says:


    I’ll check what I have to hand, re: Hitler’s ambitions in the east (and his wish for Britain to give him a free hand).

  124. BiBiJon says:


    You have avoided the whole point, and as you continue wondering why Lewis wrote what he wrote, bear in mind, he is not just any pundit, he is the director of nonproliferation studies at at renowned institution.

    If our own fyi writes a barely noticed comment in a comment thread that Iran needs nukes to deter aggression, that is one thing. The Mr. Director writing in Foreign Policy Magazine that one of only three countries to accord diplomatic recognition to the Taliban of Afghanistan might show off some ultimate deterrent against a phantom danger in a glass case, is quite something else, wouldn’t you say?

  125. BiBiJon says:

    fyi says:
    February 3, 2014 at 3:59 pm

    OK. Intermittent madness, got it.

    One more question if you would. What deterrence would work against a adversary during the times that he has lapsed into a mad phase?

  126. fyi says:

    BiBiJon says:

    February 3, 2014 at 4:16 pm

    Just because someone is mad does not mean he is irrational, stupid, or otherwise impaired in making a cost benefit analysis.

    You have to put the fear of death in his mind and heart; like the way one treats the criminally insane.

  127. BiBiJon says:

    Doctor Cordesman at his (inconsistent) best:


    Finally, few in the United States and the West understand the extent to which this is a time when both Iran and Arab regimes face a growing struggle for the future of Islam. This is a struggle between Sunnis and Shi’ites, but also between all of the region’s regimes and violent Islamist extremists.

    This is a struggle where the data issued by the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center and other efforts to track the patterns in terrorism indicate almost all of the attacks and casualties are caused by Muslims attacking Muslims, and much of the violence is caused by Sunnis attacking Sunnis.

    End Quote

    So, the data shows most of the violence is perpetrated by Sunnis against Sunnis, but only Doctor Cordesman can see the reality, not some lame excuse for a foreign bogyman to help you linger on to illegitimate power, no, the real reality is: “both Iran and Arab regimes face a growing struggle for the future of Islam. This is a struggle between Sunnis and Shi’ites.”

    Yes folks, Sunnis, 85% of Islamdom, are in a struggle with the other 15% and they have elected, sorry appointed, sorry they had no choice in having, the Saudi clan lead the “struggle.”

    Brilliant as always!

  128. masoud says:

    Smith says:
    February 3, 2014 at 3:45 pm

    Why not compare ‘the jews’ with the Irish, who are themselves simply a very small subset of Roman Catholics and do a Nobel head count there? Share with us your findings.

    Once you’re done with that, count up the awards accumulated by the niggers, the wetbacks, the chinks, the japs, other assorted gooks, the curry munchers, and good old fashioned white folk, so you can prepare for us a hierarchy races, scratch that, i mean cultures most conducive to advancing the cause of science. We’re eager to see your results.

  129. masoud says:

    masoud says:
    February 3, 2014 at 4:44 pm

    My sincere apologies to any Protestant Irish i may have offended.

    Oh, and everyone else too.

  130. BiBiJon says:

    fyi says:
    February 3, 2014 at 4:23 pm

    Thanks. So, mad, but rational, and capable of cost-benefit calculations.

    If one is not able to strike fear of death in their hearts with no warning, will their rational capacity to calculate cause a spike in their madness if they notice you’re scheming?

  131. Don Bacon says:


    Obama Plans Saudi Arabia Visit — USA Today

    President Obama will visit Saudi Arabia next month amid reports of a strained American-Saudi relationship over Iran and Syria.

    White House press secretary Jay Carney announced that Obama would meet with Saudi King Abdullah in late March, calling it “part of regular consultations” between the two countries.

    “The President looks forward to discussing with King Abdullah the enduring and strategic ties between the United States and Saudi Arabia as well as ongoing cooperation to advance a range of common interests related to Gulf and regional security, peace in the Middle East, countering violent extremism, and other issues of prosperity and security,” Carney said.

    Obama merely looks forward to regular consultations, are you kidding me? He is surely ecstatic, the lucky dog. Just imagine having the opportunity to discuss regional events like the overthrow of the Syrian government and the impending diplomatic disaster in Iran with the one and only despotic fat-ass King Abdullah (not counting King Abdullah II of Jordan). Or perhaps they will discuss how half the kingdom’s citizens are not allowed full citizenship rights, stuff like that.

    I do hope, for Obama’s sake, that the previous news reports on Press TV that King Abdullah was clinically dead are incorrect. Or, come to think of it, it might be an improvement.

  132. Smith says:

    “Why not compare ‘the jews’ with the Irish, who are themselves simply a very small subset of Roman Catholics and do a Nobel head count there? Share with us your findings.

    Once you’re done with that, count up the awards accumulated by the niggers, the wetbacks, the chinks, the japs, other assorted gooks, the curry munchers, and good old fashioned white folk, so you can prepare for us a hierarchy races, scratch that, i mean cultures most conducive to advancing the cause of science. We’re eager to see your results.”

    Because we can not learn anything from that. Those 17 million or so western Jews are followers of a religion. We have to compare them with followers of a religion, not a nationality.

    Similarly you can not compare Black people and Japanese with the Jews since one is a race and the other a nationality.

    This does not take away the very important question that I raised: How come 1700 million Muslims can not produce even a fraction of scientists and inventors produced by 17 million Jews?

    Both are religious groups. Both are followers of Abrahamic religions. Both claim to be righteous. One lives in squalor. The other produces a disproportionate amount of science and technology around us. They along with western Christians almost all of the science and technology in the world.

    The question is legit and very consequential. The important thing though is, if you have the intellectual capability to even understand the question, let alone to answer it.

    As events in Muslim lands in the past 500 years have shown, it has always been the lack of science and technology which has hampered these communities to reach their potential and live a secured and independent lives. Even the recent Iranian “acceptance” of this deal with US was Iran’s crippled state in matters of science and technology which necessitated this “deal”, since Iran can not still produce its own medicines, implantable cardiac pacemakers, helium cartridges for/and MRI’s, wheat, underpants, socks, car engines, etc etc.

  133. yk says:

    This forum as been created to enlighten people’s mind I believe. But some have made it a venue for personal vendetta. Please people keep your emotion in check and refrain from obscene languages, at least as a sign of respect for the host of this great site. Some might say they are enjoying their right to freedom of speech, such people would do well to realize that kids might be reading these comments. Please let us think of the impact of our action on others and let us not be the very thing we claim to be clamouring against. Thanks

  134. Don Bacon says:

    Nobody’s perfect; Cordesman is 90% wrong. I particularly dislike the way he characterizes US imperialism, the main agent of unstability in Southwest Asia and North Africa, as “efforts at reform.”

  135. fyi says:

    BiBiJon says:

    February 3, 2014 at 5:14 pm

    You evidently lack first-hand experience with Madness & Death.

    When I am telling you such things, try to accept them as a feature of the world in which you live.

    چو بشنوی سخن اهل دل، مگو که خطاست
    سخن شناس نیی جان من خطا این جاست

  136. Smith says:

    fyi says:
    February 3, 2014 at 5:29 pm

    The principles of game theory are on your side. The rest is Voodoo. Let the followers of Voodoo be.

  137. fyi says:

    Smith says:

    February 3, 2014 at 5:22 pm

    Actually there was a book published at the time of the Shah; “The Jewish Winners of Noble Prize” which was banned by his government – lest it offends the Muslim Iranian sensibilities.

    I do not know if it ever was re-issued after the Islamic Revolution.

    Jews were not very prominent in the development and gestation what became the (Western) Empirical Sciences until late in the 18-th century when restrictions on their physical movements as well as occupations were removed.

    Jews actually contributed more to Philosophy under the Muslim rulers – until that light was extinguished by the prevailing unthinking attitude of Muslims everywhere.

    I particularly recall the idea of one them, I think Abol Barakat al Baghdadi, who posited that Time denoted the Quantity of Existence….

  138. masoud says:

    Smith says:
    February 3, 2014 at 5:22 pm

    I guess an IQ of 147 is not all it’s cracked up to be.

    Count ’em. Eight. Out of a population of 5 million. Please elucidate for us the reasons Irish Roman Catholic culture seems to be about 4.5 times more conducive to knowledge production than Jewish religion/culture. By your own metric, that is.

  139. BiBiJon says:

    fyi says:
    February 3, 2014 at 5:29 pm

    I plead not guilty. I can imagine both death, fear of death and madness. As a human being I have personal experience of two, and people assure me there’s no escaping the experience of the third.

    I’m trying to get my arms around how to formulate necessary precautions, avoidance tactics, confrontational strategies for these truisms. And, frankly, I come up empty. Hence asking you questions I have been asking.

  140. Smith says:

    fyi says:
    February 3, 2014 at 5:37 pm

    Yes, that is so.

    Since you raised the issue of importance of questioning, I have decided from time to time to raise a few questions here. Its the ultimate antidote for the savages on this board. They hate questions. And I will keep injecting their asses with bigger and bigger questions until they burst.

    Now, I know that I can never raise these questions under my real name or physically in Iran, since that would be the end of my life and the lives of my family and relatives, as we would all be tortured to death. But I can do it on the internet with relative (not absolute) safety. Since seeing the effect of pure light of questions on these savage zombie vampires as the rays burn through their filthy skins and expose their inner darkness for extermination is really enjoyable.

  141. Smith says:

    “Please elucidate for us the reasons Irish Roman Catholic culture seems to be about 4.5 times more conducive to knowledge production than Jewish religion/culture. By your own metric, that is.”

    Yes, you answered yourself already. They are not Muslims. They do not follow Islam. They are Roman Catholics.

    Let me rephrase the question for your retarded brain:

    How come 80 million Iranian Muslims can not produce even a fraction of scientists and inventors produced by 5 million (as per your claim) Irish Roman Catholics?

  142. Fiorangela says:


    Your criticism of my question was fair enough — You said All Muslims, I said Iranians.

    My response was an attempt to get at multiple categories of analysis, not just religion, i.e. Jewish :: Muslim, because your statement here —

    “Those 17 million or so western Jews are followers of a religion. We have to compare them with followers of a religion, not a nationality.”

    Is dead wrong. Not even close.

    Ask Abba Eban: “Jews are a PEOPLE.” whatever that means.

    Most zionists were secular when they migrated to Israel.

    Many Russians who migrated to Israel in the 1980s were not Jews at all: a friend who is a Mizrahi Jew told me there were two kinds of people in Israel: Jewish and Arab. Anybody who came from Russia who was not Arab was ipso facto Jewish. Russians are some of the smartest people on the planet — for a number of reasons having to do with their culture, history, geography, and diversity. Israel was in economic doldrums pre-Russian migration; it was Russian-ness, not Jewish-ness, that jump-started Israel’s technological leap. Israel is having a hard time sustaining that leap because its universities are poor, as are its lower level schools — they are so bound up in zionist and religious ideology that science takes second and third place.

    It would make more sense to examine the institutions that educated/supported/funded all these Jews who are so advanced — how many of them were established by Jews?

    Since the main marker of Jewishness is not religion but something else — culture, shared history — it makes sense to study the history of the Jewish people to figure out what elements contribute to increased achievement in science. For starters, I would mention that Jews call their 500 years in Iberia in a Muslim-Jewish Andalusian culture their “Golden Age.”

    When Jews left Andalusia, many settled in Italy, where they gained admission to already-well-established universities like Padua. There, they studied medicine, because it had no religious context. Jewish histories relate that this situation is one is responsible for the beginning of a tradition of studying and practicing medicine.

    Jews are migratory people. Rational migratory practice says you seek out the best opportunities, including the finest educational opportunities. Thus, Jews from Poland and Russia migrated in droves to German and Austrian universities in the 1800s. Once again, as in Padua and other European universities in the Middle Ages, Jews took advantage of the best educational opportunities available, and were not constrained from relocating to take advantage of them. I don’t know about ALL Muslims, but my impression is that Iranians are more tied to the land than are Jews: that’s a yin-yang situation: the comfort and familiarity on one’s own land exposes one to fewer challenges to adapt. Just using Iranians as a place-holder for “all Muslims,” when one is loyal to the land, one will more likely fight for the land rather than leave it for more rewarding opportunities. When you have to spend your energy defending your land, there is less energy to commit to creative new thinking, and certain less exposure to the discoveries others have made.

    The primary complaint of Jews against Germany under NSDAP was that Germans restricted the access of immigrant Jews to German institutions — Jews called this “persecution.” In the USA, a similar phenomenon is taking place with respect to (primarily) Hispanic immigrants that we encapsulate in the term “immigration reform.”

    There are a dozen categories that could and should be examined to tease out why “17 million Jews produce more scientists” than a billion Muslims. I submit that the least likely answer is religion, and equally unlikely is biology/race.

  143. kooshy says:

    fyi says:
    February 3, 2014 at 4:23 pm

    This is the case of the poet who ran out out of rhyming words
    شاعر كه به تنك أيد

  144. masoud says:

    Smith says:
    February 3, 2014 at 5:55 pm

    Your the IQ 147, and I’m the Retard, so you answer it.
    And right after you’re done, tell me why the Catholics are smarter than the Joooos too.

  145. Fiorangela says:

    “How come 80 million Iranian Muslims can not produce even a fraction of scientists and inventors produced by 5 million (as per your claim) Irish Roman Catholics?”

    – – –

    The Irish, like Jews, are People of the Word — they like to write. Both groups like to write about themselves, i.e. they are self-promoters.

    – – –

    The Irish principal in my Roman Catholic high school used to tell a tale about the salmon and the chicken: salmon struggle against the current to swim upstream where it lays hundreds of eggs.
    Chickens remain in a soft nest and lay one or two eggs, but each one is produced amidst loud squawking.
    It pays to advertise.

    There may well be hundreds of Muslim and Iranian scientists doing cutting edge work, but it is not their cultural practice to squawk about it.

    nb. The human genome project has an epicenter in the Maryland suburbs near National Institutes of Health. A majority of the scientists in those labs are Chinese. The area saw a tremendous influx of Jewish people in the late-1980s — early 1990s such that they comprise about 4% of the area’s population. They work in US government, lobby groups, and defense contractors. The more recent influx of Chinese is already amounting to just under 4% of the population, and they are primarily scientists & engineers.

  146. James Canning says:


    In effect you raise the issue of bad taste on the part of Jeffrey Lewis, is treating so casually the notion of a Saudi Arabia armed with nukes. I continue to wonder just what the game plan was, in that aspect of his comments.

  147. fyi says:

    Fiorangela says:

    February 3, 2014 at 6:19 pm

    No, no, no – Mr. Smith is correct.

    The legacy of 800 years of Unthinking cannot be overcome in 34 years.

    One could also look at the Hindus, or the Chinese and conclude the same thing.

    Such considerations always bring me back to the ideas of the late Henri Pirenne and the European Exceptionalism (and not American one).

    The confrontations with Imperial Russia, Great Britain, and now the United States have been the best things that have happened to Iran and the Iranians; they were kicked out of their slumber of centuries.

    And US kicking Iran over the last 34 years has had great educational benefit to Iranians.

  148. Smith says:

    Fiorangela says:
    February 3, 2014 at 6:04 pm

    “Is dead wrong. Not even close.

    Ask Abba Eban: “Jews are a PEOPLE.” whatever that means.”

    >>> When doing a rational comparison, you have to compare using the same notions and units. Comparing Lebanese apple and American orange is useless. To be fair and rational, we have to use the same quality we want to compare and derive a hypothesis from. So if I want to compare the scientific output of Mohammedan Muslims for reason of questioning their pathetic performance in the past several centuries, I will have to pick another religion. Since I brought the question to the forum, I used my discretion of being the first to frame it as such with Judaism. You can frame it, any other way you want. But for me it is the shameful performance of Muslims that I am interested in. Not the intricacies of Judaism as a faith, intra-Christian rivalries etc.

    And we are all people. Jews, Christian, Muslim, Atheist, Polytheist, Agnostic etc etc. But we are not minion replicas of each other. We are not identical dolls. We have differences and through those differences we can compare with each other in order to learn and to aid our introspection.

    “Many Russians who migrated to Israel in the 1980s were not Jews at all: a friend who is a Mizrahi Jew told me there were two kinds of people… ”

    >>> Irrelevant to the question I asked. Jews, regardless of what is generally believed are actually composed of many different ethnicity. They can be Arab, Black, Persian, Russian, European etc etc. They also can be secular, extremist, moderate, agnostic, atheist etc. As can be Muslims. As can be Christians. Hindus. Buddhists. And so on. This does not teach us anything. Neither does Zionism or Israel. As with Muslim neither does Ahmadi/Bahai or Pakistan. You see, they are notional equivalents eg. Pakistan and Israel both were created for religious reasons.

    My question was very clear, Comparing the output of scientists and inventors from 1700 million Muslims with that of 17 million Jews. I do not see how your paragraph helps in answering this question.

    “It would make more sense to examine the institutions that educated/supported/funded all these Jews who are so advanced — how many of them were established by Jews?”

    This is very interesting and helpful suggestion. So let me thank you for it. But it raises more questions itself instead of answering my question eg. why Muslims could not have those institutions, support, funding etc. You must be aware that the Muslims are not a poor people. They have been gifted with large amounts of petrodollars, rents from their natural resources and their strategic locations etc etc. After all, things like institutions, funds, labs, support structures etc are merely tools created by women and men. So the question rather shifts to why Jews can use/make more tools to produce more scientists and inventors than Muslims can? You see the question still remains.

    “Since the main marker of Jewishness is not religion but something else — culture, shared history — it makes sense to study the history of the Jewish people to figure out what elements contribute to increased achievement in science. For starters, I would mention that Jews call their 500 years in Iberia in a Muslim-Jewish Andalusian culture their “Golden Age.” ”

    This point is much better, so I have to doubly thank you on its account. Whether “Jewishness” is a religion or a culture is beyond the scope of my question (by the way you can argue the same about Muslims). But the study of their history is truly a helpful suggestion for Muslim countries around the world. I really urge that they do not stop with that “Golden Age” and rather continue the study of that history to today. After all the overwhelmingly vast majority of our total knowledge has been produced in the past 5 centuries. For example take the atomic physics so crucial to our world today. Even the computer you are using to read these words would not be possible without atomic physics. And the atomic physicists themselves from all over the world joke that it is a Jewish science. True to an exceedingly large extent, minus afew “non-Muslims” like Dr Abdussalam.

    But do you really think that Muslims have the capacity and tolerance to study the Jewish history? I mean, I know that you said this in your innocence. But, I have to say this: Really? Do you really think that Malaysia, Pakistan, Afghanistan or Iran will study (let alone learn from) Jewish history? So the question again remains, why a Jew in US can study the history of Islam and even learn from it, but a Muslim in Pakistan can not even contemplate studying Jewish history (let alone learning from it)?

    Merely the question has become deeper. But it still stands unanswered.

    In old times, the Iranian kings like many other Muslim kings used to employ Jewish physicians for themselves and their families. They deemed their services worthwhile (only for themselves, and not for the population). Though they always saw this as a necessary anomaly and always forbid Muslims learning from them. Today the Muslims regard the products of Jewish science as worthwhile. Not much has changed, it seems. The only improvement seems to be that now they allow standard Medical textbooks (overwhelmingly written and edited by Jewish authors) to be used in University of Dhaka and University of Baghdad as long as the authors “Jewishness” is not “revealed”.

    Again the question stands, why Muslims can not establish traditions of learning as Jews did, while studying medicine? As you might be already aware, the highest rates of infant mortality, neonate mortality, maternal mortality and child mortality belong to no others but Muslims.

    “Jews are migratory people…. my impression is that Iranians are more tied to the land than are Jews….”

    >>> Maybe. But then the great majority of Jewish scientists were not living nomadic lives. Most of them were born into those countries and died there. A Jewish scientist in England or United States can not be considered a nomad on the move. Muslims move too. Sikhs move too. Hindus move too. In fact during the British Raj of India, alot of Muslims, Hindus and Sikh had been brought to England to study. Why we do not see that zeal of learning and questioning among Muslims? As you can see the intolerance towards learning and questioning boils over whenever I ask questions here. The savages can not contain themselves, the moment a question is raised. They attack the asker of the question for his/her blood. Thank God for DARPAnet and the anonymity it allows. Otherwise I would have been dead already.

    “The primary complaint of Jews against Germany under NSDAP ….””

    >>> Currently Iranians are also restricted from certain fields in western world. It has always been like this. If you had a Japanese background during world war ii, you would have been left out of nuclear sciences in 1940’s USA. But if you had Jewish background, you were welcome. That is just life. It does not help to understand the filthy performance of Muslims in scientific fields for the past several centuries.

    “I submit that the least likely answer is religion, and equally unlikely is biology/race.”

    >>> Race is out, and it is so ridiculous that I do not want to even waste my time contemplating on it. But religion is definitely a factor and probably the only factor across the culturally diverse lands from Algeria to Malaysia. Many Muslim thinkers also have believes on the same lines that it is the religion and only religion:

    “The Irish, like Jews, are People of the Word — they like to write. Both groups like to write about themselves, i.e. they are self-promoters.”

    >>> Well atleast, they have something to write about. Muslims do not.

    You must have some eggs/balls to write about them. Out of the nearly 1000 medicines in use today, all them have been created by Non-Muslims excepting a mere two, one being ethanol extracted by an Iranian scientist 1000 years ago without realizing what good it was for and other being a heart medicine extracted by a Pakistani scientist, before Pakistan itself was created and without knowing what it was good for (the disease it is used for was actually discovered by Spanish doctors in 1990’s).

    With such a track record, trying to write becomes quite difficult. I mean, it would only look ridiculous for Saudis, Pakistanis and Iranians to write a book about their scientific achievements in the past 50 years. Such a book would not be fun to read. I remember a short childhood story in which a mad man in the hospital requests the administration to be provided resources from him to write a book about horses. The administration believing the mad man to be on the road to recovery provides the resources and the mad man over a couple of years, writes a huge 37 volume book manuscript about horses. When he hands over the manuscript for publication to the hospital administration, that it is realized that the effort was a waste of time. The book read: “There was a horse and it was galloping fast and faster, the sound of its hooves being heard for miles, clip clop, clip clop, clip clop, clip clop, clip clop ….” It was full of clip clops for 37 volumes.

    “The human genome project has an epicenter in the Maryland suburbs near National Institutes of Health. A majority of the scientists in those labs are Chinese…”

    >>> Do you think such a project can be built and sustained in a Muslim land? Say, Saudi Arabia. They have money. They can afford funding a dozen such projects. Say Iran. Say Iran builds and funds three large neutrino detectors and invite Chinese, American, German and Italian astrophysicists working along side Iranian astrophysicists. Why we do not see these things in Muslim lands?

  149. Smith says:

    “And right after you’re done, tell me why the Catholics are smarter than the Joooos too.”

    It is another retarded question. The whole South America is Catholic. I do not see their scientific output to be comparable to Jews. One the side effects of being a retard is that, you jump to conclusions without thinking. Which is ofcourse normal for a retard. Like yourself. You googled a topic and without thinking you have tried to extent it to fit your retarded views. But then no worries. I am here to cure you people. I have a large supply of injections to stick them into your butts. Again and again. Until you are cured.

  150. Smith says:

    fyi says:
    February 3, 2014 at 5:29 pm

    Unfortunately despite your brilliant efforts, they are not learning:

  151. Smith says:

    Another view on Iran’s brain drain problem and why the bottlenecks do not allow serious research being conducted in Iran:

  152. masoud says:

    Smith says:
    February 3, 2014 at 8:44 pm

    You have this abject Retard’s most humble apologies.

    Please explain to me why the Irish Roman Catholics are so much smarter than the Jooooooos.

    Personally, I think it’s got something to do with that Guinness their always drinking.

  153. masoud says:

    Smith says:
    February 3, 2014 at 8:44 pm

    And while you’re at it, please lay out for me, very slowly and using shorter word wherever possible, how the Joooos have become so much smarter than the whole continent of South America.

  154. Empty says:


    It appears that you’re receiving one-dimensional and incorrect information in some of the responses posted to your comments. If you wouldn’t mind, I’d like to post some information that might be useful in assessing the “genius” of some human inventions with which you’re being rebutted.

    Just an example…but you could apply it to numerous “genius” inventions. Some “genius” decided to use radiation therapy to “cure” cancer. Beta rays (from this therapy) are absorbed by the patient’s body but gamma rays which are themselves carcinogens (cancer causing) are all excreted through urine, perspiration, respiration, and saliva (that’s why when you have a patient that undergoes radiation therapy, physicians advise to keep pregnant women, children, and elderly at a distance of at least 2 meters from them; and their cloths must be washed separately).

    The flushed wastewater entering the sewer systems are then taken to treatments plants (build by genius minds) in which of 130,000 chemical, biological, and radioactive contaminants (manufactured by other “geniuses”) that are dumped (by genius consumers) into sewer systems only 7 different classes (total of 14 individual indicators) are treated and taken out (by some engineer “geniuses”). The rest (still 130,000+ less 7) on these contaminants remain in the “clean water” and dumped back into surface waters (by more engineer “geniuses”) which are re-injected back (by additional genius engineers) into waters for drinking and agriculture (entering the food system).

    This has meant contaminated and cancer-causing water and contaminated and cancer-causing food for everyone. This has meant increases in rates of various cancers (contracted by dumb and genius people alike) which then need to be treated by radiation therapy (applied by genius experts) which get excreted into the water and food systems which then come back to our breakfast, lunch, and dinner table (prepared by genius chefs) which we (the geniuses who appreciated all those other geniuses) consume and get more cancers and then have to go to genius doctors to get genius treatments for all the ingenuity that is oozing out of every orifice in our body.

    Think of the same process for numerous other human ingenuity and all the diseases that need to be treated in this genius way. Because of the escalation in disease rates, we need more money that we do not have to build more hospitals, cancer clinics, and get more money for disease insurance (note: health insurance is a wrong label used to mislead) to keep up in a perpetual state and cycles of diseases because diseases make more money and they keep the engines of capitalism (another genius idea generated by the genius herd who brought us all other genius inventions) purring.

    “Those who think they know are quite annoying to those who really know.” –By Someone

  155. Empty says:

    “orifice of our body” that is…

  156. Empty says:


    During regular and systematic periods of fasting that exceed 6-7 hours (preventing any food and drink entering the body) specific cells of the immune system (Natural Killer cells or NK cells for short) double in number. These cells begin moving around in the body and scavenging for deposits of unhealthy growths (like tumors) and hard deposits in the walls of arteries, joints, and tissues around vital organs. They break down these masses, send the useable portion to the “recycling” centers of the body and the remaining non-useable toxins are then excreted from the body as waste.

    The cost of fasting to get relief from joint pains, get rid of unwanted growth in the body, and prevent diseases: $0.00

    The average cost to manage (not cure but manage) arthritis pain: $2,000 a week

    Having a true intelligence to evaluate which approach is a more genius approach to health: Priceless.

  157. Empty says:

    By the way, ALL religions (regardless of the number, race/ethnicity, and nationality of their adherents) have fasting, in one form or another, as part of their religious practices.

  158. masoud says:

    Smith says:
    February 3, 2014 at 8:44 pm

    I have a large supply of injections to stick them into your butts. Again and again. Until you are cured.

    Lol. I don’t even know how i missed that one the first time I responded. I think we’re begging to get to the root of some of your issues.

    I think it’s best our Basiji brother stop recomending Smith get a girlfriend or develop a relationship with kindly old widow(Depending of course on fyi’s position on the matter. A friend in need is a friend indeed, and all that.)
    You’d just be deepening the man’s resentment.

    While were on the topic, Smith have you heard that gay professionals make, on average, much more money than their straight counterparts? Have you ever wondered why that is? Do you advocate that straight men make adjustments to their lifestyles in order to better their Lot in life? The beauty of a question like that, is that if you’re unsure about what you’re answer is, well you’ve always got the option of rolling up your sleeves, and getting your hands dirty with some field work. Live the dream, Smith. Live the dream.

  159. M. Ali says:

    All this is super confusing to my feeble Iranian brain. Can any of you please correct me if I am wrong, but what I gathered from above, is that if I convert to Judaism, I’ll automatically become smarter. Is this true?

  160. M. Ali says:

    Also, checking out list of noble prize winners per capita, it seems the top of the list is Faroe Islands. If I convert to Judaism and move to Faroe Island, would it be possible that my IQ will get some super boost?

  161. M. Ali says:

    However, I’m lucky I have a penis, which according to empirical data, contributes a lot to my IQ power.

    It seems in total, only 5% of Nobel Prize winners are women, and this average is even less if we remove Peace & Literature awards. Economic Science, 68 goes for men, just one for the ladies. But thats not surprising given they only know how to SPEND their husbad’s money, right fellas, right ha ha.

    But that’s not all they are weak at, the duuurrrr sex only had 2 in Physics, while the Genius Sex roundkicked them in the their stupid makeup face with 190 winners. And in Chemistry, only 4 were able to pull away from applying nailpolish and watching soap operas to win, while 157 kicked ass and took no names.

    Poor Bibijon and Fiorangela and their simple minds.

  162. Sammy says:

    “”US adults are dumber than the average human
    By Associated Press””

    ……WASHINGTON — It’s long been known that America’s school kids haven’t measured well compared with international peers. Now, there’s a new twist: Adults don’t either.

    In math, reading and problem-solving using technology – all skills considered critical for global competitiveness and economic strength – American adults scored below the international average on a global test, according to results released Tuesday.

    Adults in Japan, Canada, Australia, Finland and multiple other countries scored significantly higher than the United States in all three areas on the test. Beyond basic reading and math, respondents were tested on activities such as calculating mileage reimbursement due to a salesman, sorting email and comparing food expiration dates on grocery store tags…….

    And Japan tops all countries in the world of course , I leave all conclusions and implications to my dear friends on this forum.

  163. M. Ali says:

    There COULD be other explanations, but I highly doubt it with such rock hard evidence. By the way, only 15 black winners, with 11 of it being for Peace (the just-kidding award), 3 being for Literature and that leaves (let me do the math using my penis dam dam dam…), yep, 1 for the Sciences.

    I wonder if eumelanin pigments reduces brain cells.

  164. M. Ali says:

    I could do this all day. Top country is having Peace Awards?


    Basically, using this empirical data, combined with the power of my penis, the only conclusion I can come to is that USA is the country that is contributing the most to world peace.

    UK is by the way number 2.

    Combing these two super powers of Peace makes up a third of all the peace efforts of the world. Meaning that without the peacefullness of UK and US, the world would have been at least 33% less peaceful.

    Cant argue with facts.

  165. BiBiJon says:

    In case you want to know why Daniel Pipes (aka Smith) has gone supercharged, turbo …

    a) He owns stocks in a gender bender clinic subsidiary of a synagog in Faroe Island.


  166. Fiorangela says:

    M. Ali says:
    February 4, 2014 at 5:55 am

    “All this is super confusing to my feeble Iranian brain. Can any of you please correct me if I am wrong, but what I gathered from above, is that if I convert to Judaism, I’ll automatically become smarter. Is this true?”

    Y’ns gots ta watch this interview of Yuri Slezkine, author of “The Jewish Century.”

    1. Slezkine was born in Moscow, Russia in the Soviet Union and considers himself a Russian who, like his parents, hated the Soviet regime. When he was about 12 years old, he learned that his mother had Jewish ancestors. The most fascinating thing is Mr. Kreiser’s response to this information: “When you learned you were Jewish, er, had Jewish ancestors, how did that change your orientation?”

    I watched very closely the pull-and-tug between Slezkine and Kreiser; the latter impressed me as committed to the notion that Jewishness was a special category that conveyed some characteristics that were different from all other -ishes. Seemingly, this -ishnes has a generalized quality and is communicated genealogically (heh — dodged using the word ‘racially’).

    Slezkine, to whom I would gladly offer my daughter if I had one. was gentle, firm, and consistent. He emphasized his appreciation of Russian culture and considered himself Russian; that that loyalty is communicated to Russians through their literature, especially; that his book, “The Jewish Century,” was part of his quest to discover his history, and he felt that his insights into the lives of his Jewish forebears enriched his knowledge of his own life, and that he remained informed and enriched by his Russian heritage.

    2. Slezkine’s overall thesis in “The Jewish Century” hinges on the introductory material about the mythical figures Mercury (Hermes) and Apollo. He defines Jews as “Mercurian,” but — and this is important — says that the Type is not limited to Jewish people: other nationals act as outsider minorities in states alien to them; for example, Indians are called the Jews of East Africa, and Lebanese and Armenians serve the same function in other alien majority cultures.

    Slezkine lists the traits of Mercurians– they stand apart from the majority culture, refraining from sharing hospitality — they neither invite others to break bread with them, nor do they eat with the Majority culture; they do not share their women with the majority culture; their loyalty and efforts serve the needs of the Mercurians primarily, and the Majority culture secondarily.

    — Listen to the video — it’s highly informative and (obviously) does a better job than my interpretations at explaining Slezkine’s concepts.

    Smith said “Iranians should study Jewish history.” Ya, Ahmadinejad tried that; how did that work out? Mercurians demand to control the narrative of their history and culture, and also give themselves permission to define other cultures.

    Re the latter point, that Mercurians define the cultures of other — most often negatively — Stephen Kinzer discussed his book, “All the Shah’s Men” (www dot c-span dot org/video/?178722-1/Shahs) in front of an audience that included a number of Iranian ex-pats. At about 1:20, an audience member said, “Yes, the overthrow is a painful memory, but it is far more painful to be in US, listen to what the administration (??) says about Iran, to see the general public of the US still doesn’t get it about what is going on. This is the most painful thing, more painful than the 1953 coup.”

    One final thought about studying Jewish history, and Mercurian control of their own narrative — a characteristic of the Mercurian function is to act invisibly. Nowhere is this more “evident” than in the plethora of histories of the 20th century wars in Europe and the interim period between those two wars: I challenge — James Canning — to select any five major histories of World War II, particularly by a British author, and find a discussion of the role of zionism/zionists, or mention of Jewish involvement in prosecuting those wars, rather than discussion of Jews solely as victims of those wars. Jews as actors/agents are invisible in histories of the interwar period and of WWII, even histories such as A J P Taylor’s “Origins of World War II.” How can this possibly present an accurate assessment of “origins” and causes when the fact that “Judea Declared War on Germany” on March 24 1933, announced in banner headlines in major newspapers throughout Europe and USA and prosecuted for at least seven years, is not considered? Readers of Going to Tehran know otherwise, but the entire US Congress & punditocracy maintains as an article of dogma that “sanctions brought Iran to the table,” and that “sanctions are crippling Iran’s economy, and that’s a good thing.” So they recognize a cause-effect relationship which they participated in deliberately creating (even if ludicrously wrong and immoral) in the situation of Iran, but fail to acknowledge the very same deliberate actions, with similar, deliberate intentions, in the case of Germany. When Benji Netanyahu equates Iran to Germany, we should take him at his word.

    (I think I got distracted — a 2″ box of text enables one to forget what was stated 6″ earlier). PROOFREAD PROOFREAD later later

  167. James Canning says:


    What do you think the response of Britain should have been, to the partition of Poland by the Soviet Union and Germany in 1939?

  168. James Canning says:


    Since Jeffrey Lewis has indicated in the past year he does not think Saudi Arabia is trying to obtain nukes, his comments regarding the acquisition of Chinese missiles may have been intended to promote further “defence” spending by Saudi Arabia.

  169. Fiorangela says:

    James Canning says:
    February 4, 2014 at 1:53 pm

    James, 1939 is much too late a beginning point to accurately analyze “the whole offense.”

    It’s like noticing that there is a canker on the leaves of a tall tree, so you cut the trunk in half and examine the trunk instead of examining the root system — adequate water? proper soil balance?, or the environment, i.e. possibility of air-borne diseases or insects —

    So instead of cutting the tree trunk to discover the disorder, I’m preparing a response that will examine the roots and the context. I’ll post it when it’s reduced to something less than encyclopaedic length.

  170. James Canning says:

    Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal attacked the proposed deal with Iran today: “Now the [Obama] administration is pressing for an agreement with Iran based on the conceit that the intelligence community will give policy makers ample warning before the mullahs sprint for a nuclear weapon.” No surprise, to those famiilar with Stephens.

  171. James Canning says:


    I will read your longer response when you post it. Do you have an opinion re: Munich (September 1938)? Do you think Chamberlain was right to accept German annexation of the Sudetenland?

  172. kooshy says:

    M. Ali says:
    February 4, 2014 at 6:35 am

    Ali thank you, fantastic

  173. Fiorangela says:

    Empty says:
    February 4, 2014 at 12:38

    “I’d like to post some information that might be useful in assessing the “genius” of some human inventions”

    — in general, as was said in “Snows of Kilimanjaro,”
    “Horses can fly but that doesn’t make the world a better place.”

    — same theme, higher plane of being:

    Though I may speak with tongues of fire and have great gifts to all inspire, but have not love my words are vain, like sounding brass or hopeless gain.

  174. Empty says:


    RE: “Though I may speak with tongues of fire and have great gifts to all inspire, but have not love my words are vain, like sounding brass or hopeless gain.”

    Very well said.

  175. Karl.. says:

    Zarif regarding recogning Israel.

  176. Smith says:

    Fiorangela says:
    February 4, 2014 at 8:53 pm

    It is really a shame that someone who appears to live somewhere around NIH, would want to swallow lies and unscientific drivel coming out of a hypocrite. The least you could do in the interest of truth (if that is important to you at all) is to take his drivel to NIH and take an expert opinion on his lies from a few nuclear medicine specialists there. See what happens. It is so ridiculous and voodoo that I do not want to waste my time debunking it. As I said, a major problem we have in the world are Americans who do not want the same thing for the world that they want for themselves.

    And as it appears, Iran must close down its entire nuclear program. Since a major portion of rationality for official existence of this program is production of radio-medicines. But then the idiots like the liars and hypocrites here, would not know that, would they?

    I would stop conversing with you, till you provide a report from your visit to NIH on the matter of drivel from this hypocrite to which you responded.

    Take care.

  177. Smith says:

    Good performance by Dr Kaveh Afrasyabi to propaganda of VOA:

    Though he forgot or does not know that the economic viability of uranium mining is not at all like what the propagandists of VOA put it.

    Economics of uranium mining are different for its sale in international markets and its end use application. Some points:

    1- Basically, to keep colonial white countries like France happy, the uranium price in international markets are kept close to almost nothing since a large amount of uranium traditionally used to be coming from very poor countries in Africa (who themselves are energy starved but not allowed to have nuclear reactors). The creation of an OPEC like entity for producers of uranium has always been a red line for the white man. Not only that but now, they want to move towards an international “fuel bank” which would be completely controlled by them and would create a monopsony highly beneficial to the ultimate interests of the white man.

    2- The end price of uranium has little to almost no effect on the economic of generation of nuclear power and radio-medicines etc. The reason for that being the high energy density of nuclear energy. Take the example of Bushehr NPP. A BNPP type reactor needs about 200 tonnes of uranium per year for its full operation. Even if a nation produces uranium at the rate of 440 dollars per kilogram (for example by extracting uranium from sea water), it would be paying only about 80 million dollars more than a nation that has access to a uranium reserve producing uranium at the rate of 40 dollars per kilogram from a very high quality mine. This difference is small compared to the operating costs of a nuclear power plant (designing, building, maintaining).

    A BNPP type reactor can produce about 8 billion kilowatts of electricity per year which at the cheapest international rate would cost 800 million dollars. In addition such a plant would also produce valuable radio-elements. So that 80 million dollars of additional cost in fuel is just a small addition to the cost. Most of the cost of nuclear generation is in building infrastructures and not the fuel (fuel is actually not even considered in cost benefit feasibility studies of nuclear generation since is so meaningless).

    3- Furthermore, a BNPP type reactor only uses less than 1% of the uranium fuel being fed into it, since they are dependent on uranium-235. Light water reactors like BNPP have a very low uranium efficiency. Though the waste can always be reprocessed to remove the left over uranium and plutonium for further use again and again and again. In fact that is why France has an elaborate waste reprocessing facilities. Iran should too.

    4- Another aspect to look at here, is the higher efficiency of heavy water reactors and the super efficiency of fast reactors (they use more than 60 times less natural uranium than a BNPP type reactor for the producing the same amount of electricity). In fact they are so efficient that paradoxically when feeding them fuel, they end up producing more fuel along side electricity. That is they produce more fuel than they can consume. They are a marvel and future of humanity depends on this technology.

    So the economy of uranium mining and its international price is a propaganda tool, Iranians have to watch out for.

    Of course, one would hope that someday Iran is going to discover a large uranium deposit inside the country and one would hope that Iran would get all that Uranium back from Iranian owned Rossing uranium mine which has been feeding French reactors through Iranian owned Eurodif. But even if these are not to be and if Iran starts an R&D program and begin extraction of uranium from sea water, still Iran’s nuclear program can go forward without any economic problem. In fact Iran’s problems in this regard are not economic at all. Iran even has bailed out most corrupt banks on planet earth with 120 billion dollars, in the past couple years. Iran’s problem is science and technology.

  178. Fiorangela says:

    Dear Smith,

    One point that I am trying to make, and that I think Empty amplified, is that NIH may be operating in a self-serving realm, and for economic motives, rather then either pure science or the overall benefit of mankind.

    It is impossible for me to credit my government, or anything my government and its representatives fund, with honest and humanitarian motives when it is deliberately destroying the economies and futures, and indeed lives, of innocent people, as I consider the Iranian people to be.

    You may be aware that in the USA we are rejoicing that we can become “energy independent” of “those people who do not share our values.” US energy independence is posited on fracking. The technologies and long-term consequences of fracking are unknown. It may be that pumping chemicals deep underground will pollute the water table; new diseases could arise to harm the people dependent on the land and water affected. Already, earthquakes have occurred whose centers were at fracking sites, and cancers have been reported by people living near such operations.

    As for the glee with which USAians greet the prospect of no longer being dependent on “foreign oil” from “people who do not share our values,” it seems curious to me that those same people do not recognize that while we were enjoying cheap oil from Iran, the Iranian people were contending with environmental degradation and health hazards that caused the cancers that Iranians seek nuclear technology to remedy.

    That my country not only does not recognize this chain of events but is actually straining every effort to deny medical care to the Iranian people makes me more ashamed than I can bear. Any sense of pride that I might have in the discoveries of NIH are blackened by the realization that those discoveries are, in a sense, stolen from others.

  179. ataune says:

    “How come Iran under a “God loving government” can not even produce a fraction of what Soviet scientists produced under those godless conditions? Is it because, Iranians are stupid/idiots? Or should we blame God? Why is that so?”

    If true, I believe it’s mostly because of people who prefer daily squabbles with their fellow compatriote, arrogantly showing off their “vast knowledge” and “intelligence” of all matters related to the governance of a country but at the same time avoiding positive and concrete steps in doing what is necessary to be done (kind of like zibakalam.)

  180. M.Ali says:

    Very true, ataune.

  181. Empty says:


    Consulting the NIH is a good suggestion…..

    Duke University has some good info as well….
    http : // www .

    [a fun fact just for you…I happened to have served as a reviewer for two of NIH’s institutes for years (NIEHS and NCI) — imagine how I busted out laughing when I read the comment addressed to you…]

    “Those who think they know are quite annoying to those who really know.”

  182. James Canning says:


    A scientist in the Soviet Union enjoyed a comfortable life, especially compared to that of the average person. And teaching and training were very good.

  183. James Canning says:


    The US is temporarily “against trade with Iran”. Financial Times report Monday this week indicated a great number of American companies are already seeking to be ready to enter the Iranian market if a deal between Iran and P5+1 is achieved.

  184. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    February 5, 2014 at 1:36 pm


    US is carefully preparing the propaganda for (re-)intervention in Syria.

    The project for war against Iran – after the war against Syria – is alive and well in the United States.

  185. ataune says:

    “The project for war against Iran – after the war against Syria – is alive and well in the United States.”

    Even ordinary US citizens know that the chances of getting a big war with Iran in the next 10 years are improbable not to say almost impossible. The simplest reason is that US cannot afford it. Take a look at the Pentagon current and projected budget for the next 4 years and you will see that the war machine in the US is in a pause mode right now leaking it wounds and trying to patch its overall bureaucratic and command infrastructure innefectivness. Until the next economic “boom”, which yourself is predicting not happening in the land of the “fallen man”, there is no way that American governing elite will voluntarily engage in exacerbating the tension with Iran and creating non-controllable crisis.

    Beyond the 10 years timeframe, any prediction, already in a shaky ground, should be considered prophecy in my opinion.

  186. James Canning says:


    You are simply wildly mistaken, if you think many American compnaies are not keen to egtner the Iranian marketplace. Provided a deal between P5+1 and Iran is achieved.

    Yes, a number of powerful proponests of bad relations between Iran and the US, in America, do not want such a deal. Or the resultant benefits for Iran’s economy etc etc.

  187. James Canning says:


    The real question is whether those who oppose better relations between Iran and the EU and US, because they benefit from poor relations, can block a deal.

  188. Karl test.. says:

    February 5, 2014 at 2:01 pm

    There is not impossible at all, quite the opposite in my opinion. Even before IRaq war there was a deficit economically. That wont stop US from going to war.

  189. Karl.. says:

    February 5, 2014 at 2:01 pm

    Thatis not impossible at all, quite the opposite in my opinion. Even before IRaq war there was a deficit economically. That wont stop US from going to war.

  190. ataune says:


    Obviously future cannot be predicted. I am talking here about the congruence of events and known financial and budgetary plans which are making a more than a trillion dollars war with Iran quite unwelcome for American ruling elite (not mentioning the american public) and highly improbable for the next 10 years. Those mindsets can be seen in the political and economic mid-term planning done by the American policy makers. Accepting this might be with reluctance or eagerly but the outcome will be the same: a highly unlikely hot war scenario and I would even say escalation of “real” tensions from the American side for the near and midterm future. Iranian policy makers have clearly had the same kind of conclusion and are basing there approach on their approach being valid for now.

  191. fyi says:


    How Axis Powers treat their man-servant:

  192. James Canning says:


    Are you contending that economic problems in Turkey are the fault of Germany or the US?

  193. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    February 5, 2014 at 3:29 pm

    Turkey, like Yugoslavia, was always dependent on EU Banks for the functioning of her economy.

    Under Mr. Erdogan, this dependency only increased.

    That dependency was almost certainly was exploited by Axis Powers to beat Turkey into supporting their agenda in Syria.

    And Mr. Erdogan, himself essentially a Turkish version of the Muslim Brotherhood, probably was only too happy to comply.

    [In an analogous manner to the communists in Kabul for USSR and military officers in Cambodia and Vietnam and Chile, he was all too happy to curry favor for the Axis Powers.]

    In the Asia Times piece, Mr. Goldman expresses the contempt with which these man-servants are held by their Masters (Betters) among the Axis Powers.

    Mr. Erdogan, and indeed the entire Turkish Elite – secular or religious – sold Syria – a neighbor to Axis Powers.

    In religious terms, they sold a Muslim Country to the Un-believers.

    And there was no Real-Politik in this; only compliance to the Diktats of the Mad King and His Barons by a man-servant.

  194. fyi says:

    ataune says:

    February 5, 2014 at 2:01 pm

    The United States would be almost certainly waging a war against Iran that is qualitatively different than the land wars fought in Afghanistan and in Iraq.

    She will be aiming to destroy any manner of national life in Iran that depends on electricity and the internal combustion engine.

    She can do so with the weapons she already has and are already paid for – the “Sunk Costs”.

    Now, admittedly it will take a few weeks for US to assemble her aircraft and ships and submarines for such an assault on Iran but she is quite capable of doing so.

    And the war against Iran will be very popular in US, and possibly in France and Germany as well.

    Do not kid yourself about the hatred of the fly-over America for Islam and for Iran.

    Nor, I suggest, lull yourself about what US cannot do.

  195. fyi says:

    Smith says:

    February 5, 2014 at 10:39 am

    There is no doubt that Iranian have to re-invent the scientific wheel in many areas; 30 years of research has gone into the Arak Heavy Water Reactor – Iranians ought to be ready for war to protect that.

    There is no other way; there are Master Nations and there are Nowkar Nations – like Turkey – and saw what they got from the Axis Powers – not even trinkets.

  196. Fiorangela says:

    Smith says:
    February 5, 2014 at 1:43 pm

    Your comment is disgusting.
    You owe an apology to everyone on this forum and especially to Empty.

  197. James Canning says:


    Erdogan seems to have had a very personal interest in seeing Bashar al-Assad overthrown. He may be thinking this was a mistake.

  198. kooshy says:

    For sure Russia wouldn’t want an Iran with capability of a nuclear response that like in the case of Israel will limit her in many possible future
    plans. More so for sure she don’t want an Iran with ready tested unclear bombs to be deployed
    These perhaps are the reason for Russia’s participation in UNSC’s imposed sanctions on nuclear and militry capabilities. But in for the short term Russia for sure wouldn’t want a weakened Iran that will not and couldn’t stand to pressures from the west and falls to be yet again another ring around Russia or an element of blocking Russian Chinese influence in the region.
    All in all for Russia balancing her Iran policy is not any easier than the maneuverability Iran can get by showing she is more open to west. Doing that Iran will have a more possible hand to play the two sides.
    With what happened in Ukraine Iran now has a lot more cards to play on this game

  199. kooshy says:

    Sorry missed the last part
    Typing on iPhone
    Same Is true with what happened in Syria, true that Syrian war has given Iran trouble, but in same time Syria has made Iran limit the Russians using Iran as bargaining pawn with the west.

    That has helped to set aside any hope or plan of war that the west direct involvement may had or can have in the ME region.

  200. ataune says:


    I think you are mistaken. Neither US nor Iran, the former in particular, are looking for a hot war. In the contrary they are de-escalating now. The direction the political moves on the US side are pointing to make it almost impossible for this administration to engage in any preparation for war with Iran. In 4 years timeframe China, and more than likely Russia, will almost be on par, from a strategic point of view, with the US and then the geopolitical figure would completely change from what it was in the beginning of the millennium. And, as one of the consequences, already emerging now, the “middle-east” would become secondary to the concerns and interests of the US ruling elite more and more aware of the decline of the hegemon.

    I believe you are, to be nice, unconsciously distorting the reality on the terrain to fit a view, increasingly inconsistent with the facts and stuck with the 9/11 paradigm, of an empire looking to wage a religious war with the Islamic Republic of Iran.

    In any case, it will not be long for us to verify if the US administration is hell bent to go to war with IRI rather than being in a slow strategic retreat from the region camouflaged in some kind of artificial victory laps. Let’s say in … 6 months. And we will both be here in this forum still to discuss this.

  201. Karl.. says:


    I agree with fyi.
    There is nothing that have changed yet. Just past weeks there have been threat of war against both Syria and Iran from the US. And nothing have been solved yet with Iran, only this temporary deal just as with Syria. US cant simply accept Iran as it is today.
    I hope you will be proven right though.

  202. Rehmat says:

    Latest A-Bomb from Israel Lobby: The Supreme Leader, president Rouhani and foreign minister Zarif – are “Holocaust Deniers”!

  203. ataune says:


    from 1992 to 2006, witnessing the rise of Iran, American foreign policy makers opted for escalation: first with Christopher and Indyk the dual-containement and economic sanctions were set-up; then with 9/11, America went all the way in, creating chaos and destruction in the “middle-east”, changing the status-quo, militarily attacking Afghanistan and Irak, labeling Iran the axis of evil and publicly asking for the complete dismantlement of the nuclear, missile and space industry. US at this time was deliberately making everyone guess on the timing of a military offensive againt IRI. This era ended mostly because of the astronomical cost of wars, the collapse of the liberal economic models of the 80’s and the sooner than expected rise of China. With this end the demise of these truly mis-calculated policies in the “middle-east” took some times to sank into the mind of the ruling elite, but the early signs were displayed by the election of a president not ready to overtly take the overt offensive in the region. The US is preparing now for a strategic retreat from the region not out of benevolence but necessity. Having gone to the brink of war with Iran having looked at the precipice and having come back, US is obviously not ready to escalate again for a forseeable future (I am paraphrasing some fyi verbiage from a year or two ago here). But, when this time passes, let’s say in 3 to 4 years, the reality in the terrain will have change and most likely than not US priorities, as a declining hegemon, would have shifted to other places.

  204. Photi says:

    The meta headline of the following piece by Ben Caspit should read: “Iran watchers recognize change in Israel”

    SPOILER ALERT: This piece is written from a deeply Israeli-centric point of view and engages in propaganda pretty much throughout the entire article, especially when Caspit discusses the debunked assertion that the 2009 Iran Presidential election was rigged. He also misrepresents the Rouhani election, he repeats the canard that “pressure” has somehow brought Iran to the table, and spreads dangerous lies about how Iran supposedly wants to obliterate Israel.

    With all that said, maybe this article by Ben Caspit should be read not for the propaganda and shielding rhetoric employed (which i presume is used to capture the ear of a certain type of reader (e.g., a Zionist reader)), but should be noted for what else the article also says.

    Caspit paraphrasing an unnamed Israeli military official: “There has got to be a security margin between Iran and the bomb of eighteen months to three years, at least. If this can be achieved, we will sigh in relief. …

    “Today, war means that everyone is involved. The losses would be catastrophic, and no one will emerge a true victor. At this time, it seems that this can be avoided.”

    What i see here is a rope dangling to the Israeli political leadership to aid in climbing out of the pit of their maximalist positions towards Iran. A rejection and pathway out of PM Netanyahu’s absolutism. Perhaps inadvertently, perhaps cleverly, the author loosely demonstrates a change in Israel, does he not?

  205. Jay says:

    fyi says:
    February 5, 2014 at 4:56 pm

    I agree, in qualitative terms, with the view expressed. Accounting for the absence of a “hot war” on the ground of resource constraints on the part of the US is a grave mistake. In my view, the reasons holding back the US are volatility and risk. Once the US believes that it can limit Iranian response and potential damage to her economic interests, she will not hesitate using another Trillion or more already built weapons. The only deterrent is a credible and severely damaging Iranian response.

  206. Fiorangela says:

    Gareth Porter’s book, “Manufactured Crisis, The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare,” has just been released.

    In building a foundation for Porter’s frame of reference and while waiting for my copy of the book, I watched Porter discuss his earlier book, Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Viet Nam His thesis in “Perils” is that USA went to war in Viet Nam because it could; because no other state had sufficient power to restrain or constrain it, and, as he states in comments in the Q and A period of the discussion, “because the dominant position of [US policy makers] is to maintain ultimate power. . .You get what u need through the use of force — that’s the belief of those who start down that path. … There are psychological rewards for a policy of dominance” as well as financial rewards for those drawn into and addicted by it.

    In harmony with concepts that Flynt and Hillary Leverett have emphasized, “Imperialism exists not relative to oil but because [those policy leaders] want the power.” . . . They reframe their goals to appeal to the American people in a more benign way because imperialism is “contrary to the American ethos.” [@47 min]

    Porter establishes the process by which US presidents were drawn into war in Viet Nam as the pattern that was repeated in waging war on Iraq, which Flynt Leverett has identified as the pivot-point of the “imperial turn.”

    An intriguing element of Porter’s “Perils of Dominance” is the intrigue behind the President that had a coercive effect on presidential decision-making. Porter implicates Robert MacNamara, Averell Harriman and the Dulles brothers, among others. On this topic, Stephen Kinzer’s new book on the Dulles brothers dovetails nicely with with Porter’s thesis and focuses on the mechanism of the “imperial pivot.” Kinzer identifies a three-stage pattern for overthrowing nations that includes initiation of a scheme by outside forces involved with (usually) financial interests in the Target, who then use if not indeed co-opt government power and authority at the highest levels to work the will of the behind-the-scenes interests, and third, devising a rhetorical approach (i.e. propaganda) to gain the support of the masses — the USA being a democracy and all that. The propaganda usually involves portraying the Target as of such dangerous and subhuman characteristics that it is a direct threat to the benighted people of that nation as well as to the American way of life and (superior) value set, and the altruistic intention of liberating the target populace from the predations of their demonic leader and replacing that leadership with the (superior) leadership more in line with USA values (and more willing to comply with USA economic and imperialist demands).

  207. Fiorangela says:


    for want of a carat.

  208. ataune says:


    It’s not only financial resource constraint, but also a re-decking of the political assets. No state wages a “hot war” for the joy of doing it. War is a tool to accomplish a strategic policy in the service of the interests of the group. The way all the political indicators are blinking in the US, one can easily tell that the ruling elite is becoming more and more conscious that he needs a better political arrangement of the assets for a strategy suiting the decline of a power, maybe unchallenged in the late 90’s, but facing now several strong actors in the world. That’s it, at least until US thinks she had healed the self-afflicted wounds of the begining of the millenium and is back as the super-hegemon.

  209. James Canning says:


    You claim the “US” cannot accept Iran the “way it is”. Meaning? Obviously, John Kerry and Obama are willing to “accept Iran” provided it makes a deal with P5+1.

  210. Karl.. says:

    February 6, 2014 at 9:17 am

    I think you are wrong since you assume these people are logical and care about money, there were even a deficit economincally before the Iraq war. Money wont stop them.
    US power in the middle east will be there for decades and not until 4-5 years IMO, this change takes time.

  211. James Canning says:


    Sayed Mohammad Marandi, in the interview you linked, says the US knows It cannot “hold back Iran”. I take it you disagree with FYI who claims the US is preparing to destroy Iran.

  212. ataune says:

    So far the financial situation, along with other reasons I mentioned, have stopped them. If she wanted, US had the best pretext when Iran “escalated” to 20% to attack militarily. She didn’t. Bush wanted to display the image of an irrational man to scare his opponent, it didn’t work. The US has started to disengage from the “middle-east”. That’s why the Saudis and Israelis are panicking.

  213. James Canning says:

    Gideon Rachman has some interesting comments about the politics in Iran regarding the nuclear negotiations with P5+1, at Financial Times online (FT.COM) : “The struggle under the carpet: infighting in Iran”.

  214. ataune says:

    Don’t dream about it. The political class in Iran is aligned on this behind the leader. And they all think that this is the optimal policy for Iran for the next 3 or 4 years. We will see if there will be a second term.

  215. James Canning says:

    @ataune – – Wasn’t Bush out of the White House before Iran commenced enriching to 20%? Obama’s programme called for improving America’s relations with Iran.

  216. James Canning says:

    @ataune – – What would I be “dreaming about”? My own hope is that Rouhani can keep sufficient backing to carry through his programme.

  217. James Canning says:

    @ataune – – “Aligned” on what? On making a deal with P5+1? Or on not making a deal?

  218. James Canning says:


    Regarding the prospective cost of the idiotic US invasion of Iraq, we should remember that the neocons who conspired to set up the war duped GW Bush into thinking Iraqi oil would pay for the invasion.

  219. ataune says:


    when I wrote “Bush wanted to display the image of an irrational man to scare his opponent, it didn’t work” I didn’t mean it to be related to the 20% enrichment. Those 2 statements were not targetting the same timeframe.
    The US backpedaling from its aggressive stand towards Iran started at the time of Bush, right after the first year in his second term, when it was obvious that the militaristic “offense” policy has backlashed. Her retreat from the position of complete dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear program started at the same time. Obama, as you are mentioning, made this into the formal political program of the US. I think it should be clear to anyone that “the number one… by far” cannot display a hasty retreat to the world opinion and has to disguise it into a semi-victory by trying to muddy the water. For the policy makers throughout the world though, US de-escalating the war rhetoric was evident to see let’s say after 2006.

  220. ataune says:

    On a policy of “de-escalating” for the next 3 to 4 years.

  221. ataune says:

    You might have dreams on seeing Iranian leaders fighting each other the way some of them did in 2009. It’s likely though that we will witness more incongruous “western” policy in the region than another attempt for color revolution coup in Iran.

  222. Karl.. says:


    I dont think think 20% were such a big deal at the moment for the US, if it were US would have attacked as you claim. Its the same with syria, obama were close to bomb Syria, how come, if their economy is so bad? Perhaps because these people dont care about the costs? Rather it seems more like the world wasnt willing to go to war at that time.

    I must admit though that I dont know much about economics but it doesnt seems to play a vital role imo.

  223. Karl.. says:

    Here we have it, US try to bring regimechange to Ukraine and on top of that,

    “Fuck the EU!”

  224. James Canning says:

    @Ataune – – The political infighting in Iran in 2009 was a very bad thing, in my view.

  225. ataune says:

    So you accept that there is a CAUSE which led the US not to attack Syria or Iran and this wasn’t the whim of an irrational leader(s) waking up some morning and thinking with himself “Oh… I’m not in the mood to attack Iran/Syria anymore.”

    Now all that remains for you is to find out what are those CAUSES and try to make a pattern out of them.

  226. James Canning says:

    @Ataune – – GW Bush did not attack Iran because the CIA and other intel agencies blocked any attack ((2007 NIE on Iran). Dick Cheney and his gang were keen on an attack on Iran.

  227. James Canning says:

    @Ataune – – I think Obama would see war with Iran as a very bad thing for the US. He obviously wants a deal. But hardliners in Iran may prevent it.

  228. Fiorangela says:

    Victoria Nuland’s Own Recipe, How Imperial Sausage is Made

    More significant than Nuland’s obscenity is her mention of Jeff Feltman who is US political attache at UN. That’s where he ended up after Hillary Clinton called on him to manage the uprising in Tunisia — to make sure Tunisia did not stray from the US reservation — and the subsequent color revolutions of the “Arab Spring.”

    Feltman is a neocon’s neocon, with a record going way back, including placing subversives, er, “democracy-building NGOs” in Iran and providing funding for them.

  229. ataune says:

    You are again day dreaming: No “hardliner” will move politically against the “de-escalation” policy. This has been agreed upon in the National Security Council with the presence of all political currents. I predict that the “west” will be the one showing its inconsistency; and again this will not translate into an escalation from the US side but rather more confusion in the region and more political gain for the Iranian side.

  230. Karl.. says:


    Yes as I said world/public seems to have stopped the war at THAT time.
    That doesnt mean US will never go to war ever again or that the public/world wouldnt support wars in the future.

  231. James Canning says:

    @Ataune – – Are you saying that Rouhani will not be blocked by opposition in Iran, in making a deal with P5+1?

  232. ataune says:

    US will probably go to war again in the futur but the likelyhood that she will escalate for such a war with Iran in the next 3 to 4 years is really low. And this is out of necessity, not free choice. The Reason you are giving here is one the CAUSES that dictate this necessity.

  233. James Canning says:


    The Financial Times reported this week that external investment in Tunisia is almost entirely from the EU. 80%. Profound need to create 100,000 new jobs pwer year, for increase in labour force. Not easy to achieve.

  234. ataune says:

    Any decision approved by the leadership in Iran will be implemented. The US side will be the one having problems implementing its part of the bargain.

  235. James Canning says:

    @Ataune – – In his TV interview, Rouhani complained about “shocking corruption” and “intimidation of those who support nuclear negotiations”. This suggests hardlines may be trying to block a deal. In Iran. Of course, this obtains in the US too.

  236. Karl.. says:

    February 6, 2014 at 3:50 pm

    Isnt that impossible to say? Something could happen next week or in 6 months that could get US full support for a war.

  237. ataune says:

    That’s a good and legitimate war of words. He wants to show the american executif that his hands are as bound as theirs. But the reality is that the most vocal opponents of the “nuclear deal” are also the most partisan proponents of “follow the leadership directives in any circumstances”. They will fall into line if they are advised so. On the other hand, in the US the fight is between the lobbies backing outside interests and an administration which understands the necessity for the US to retreat strategically but is embroiled in conflicts of interests and incapabale of taking firm decisions. This will likely bring confusion to the region but it will also prevent an escalation towards war.

  238. ataune says:

    It would have not been if you have had Calligula in the White House.

  239. Karl.. says:

    February 6, 2014 at 4:15 pm

    Not following what you mean here.

  240. ataune says:

    Something unexpected, or even perpetrated by Saudi or Israeli agents as a false flag, shouldn’t change the direction where things are going, unless you had a capricious dictator in the White House.

  241. Karl.. says:

    February 6, 2014 at 4:35 pm

    Sure, it shouldnt but this is the reality. I would say Obama in his foreign policy is very dictator-like imo.

  242. Fiorangela says:

    James Canning says:
    February 6, 2014 at 3:50 pm

    Your comment is one more demonstration that EU is not nearly as dumb as USA.

    USA does not do investment or mutually beneficial economic, trade or cultural relations; as my long, red comment pointed out, quoting Gareth Porter, “USA [is addicted] to solving problems by use of force.”

    QED —

  243. Jay says:

    ataune says:
    February 6, 2014 at 1:11 pm

    I do not follow your response. Perhaps I was not speaking in sufficiently concrete terms. An element of US decision making relies on opportunity cost – not to be taken literally to mean financial. The US is not in a position to evaluate the OC with sufficient degree of confidence for enablement of a decision.

    I am often dismissive of the media portrayal of these so-called wounds – wars, etc. The case for human and humane evaluation of lost lives, resources, and potentials on many sides is compelling, but, unfortunately, not the basis for decisions made at the International level by the US and allies. One must keep in mind that “wounds” is in the “eye of the beholder”, as these “wounds” have promoted the stronger concentration of wealth in the hands of the few wealthy. The extent of opposition to new “wounds” by these wealthy recipients of the additional wealth due to new wounds remains entirely untested.

  244. Fiorangela says:

    Patrick Buchanan on USA interference in Ukrainian governance —

    Is Victoria Nuland playing the Kermit Roosevelt role in Mossadeqhing Ukraine or is she playing the John Foster Dulles role in Mossadeqhing Ukraine?


    Either way, why are the USA’s ‘public intellectuals’ such slow learners?

  245. James Canning says:


    Yes, I agree with you that the EU acts with much more sense than the US, in these matters. Tunisia is a good example.

  246. James Canning says:


    At Davos, some of those who heard Rouhani speak of pressure from hardliners, argued that Rouhani was pretending to be under pressure, to conceal the fact he did not want to compromise. You appear to take the line of thos who say Rouhani should not be trusted.

  247. Fiorangela says:

    Gareth Porter writing — “The Perils of Dominance” and “Manufactured Crisis,” and the Leveretts’s “Going to Tehran” share many of Akron University professor Walter Hixson’s perspectives.

    Like Porter, Hixson has studied the Viet Nam war extensively. Porter alludes to the role of propaganda in getting a democracy on board with war; Hixson wrote a book on the topic — “Parting the Curtain: Propaganda, Culture and the Cold War, 1945-1961.” Yale University Press has also published his “major reconceptualization of US foreign policy,” “The Myth of American Diplomacy.”

    The good guys are out there, folks, even if MSM pays no attention to them.

  248. kooshy says:

    Jay says:

    February 6, 2014 at 6:40 pm

    After Smith’s BS now we have another classic here,

    [“Wounds” is in the “eye of the beholder”]

    One wonder since the wound now only counts up there in the eye, would the wounded still feel the wound’s pain up in the ass, according to this reasoning what it counts is the visibility but not the pain.
    Really can’t get enough of these new logics, this might be because of my eyes that are constantly beholding made-up BS.

  249. ataune says:

    Don’t fool yourself. I’m not talking about politicians, be it Obama or Rohani, who are here to display attitude and posture to the public opinions, but of the words given by the State. Everyone knows that Iran’s words can be trusted more than the US ones. Do you have any doubt about this?

  250. ataune says:


    I’m just saying that US won’t wage war for the pleasure of doing it. She has to calculate the risks involved, as you admit it too, and the benefits of its actions for its strategic interests.

    Currently a US war against Iran is a huge risk for the American side, economically financially, from a legitimacy and legality point of view, from an outcome point of view but also from a prestige and standing as a superpower position. additionally, the strategic interests of the hegemon dictate a lull in her aggressive actions in the region (which she has already initiated). After this period, that I estimate to be around 4 years, the geopolitical shift in the world would be such that Iran will be out of the horizon for the US plans of action. That’s the reason why some of the proxies are panicking, a handful pushing overtly for war, while others, like Iranian outside opponents taking the “intellectual” polarized position.

  251. Jay says:

    kooshy says:
    February 6, 2014 at 8:09 pm

    Regrettably you have misunderstood my observation of injustice and its justification as an endorsement of such. Perhaps that is understandable.

    The practice of reasonable discussion demands constant patience and inquiry as misunderstandings are not uncommon. I am sorry that you have taken this personally. Perhaps a new reading of what I stated, in light of what I have stated, may be in order.

  252. Fiorangela says:


    You may be giving too much credit to rationality and too little credit to the psychological compulsion to project power. US has been high on addiction to power and only running smack into a wall will force it into a “treatment program.”

    Recall, Madeleine Albright said, “What is the sense of having a great military if you don’t use it?” As long as US has its massive military budget, a “professional” army, and a central banking system that systemically allows the Congress to spend without accountability to the populace, that military will only grow. And as long as the military grows, it will have to be deployed. “Idle hands are the devil’s workshop.”

    For your logic to prevail, the US military commitment– in budgets; dependent contracts and contractors; personnel but more specifically careerists; civilian support bureaucracies and their careerists — would all have to be reduced dramatically.

    In addition, the political structure in the US would have to undergo a sea-change: presently, the populace is pretty much locked out of decision making, as the people’s representatives are beholden to the financiers who profit from war, the corporations who also profit from war; even the population can be manipulated to desire a war if it is “advertised” with the prospect of employment. Media, theoretically a check on the excesses of government and the educator and informer of the masses, has long since surrendered their role as objective outsiders in favor of — stable employment, and now act as megaphones for the financiers, corporations, and careerist military, bureaucrats, and politicians.

    Seems to me a bleak and vicious cycle.

  253. Jay says:

    ataune says:
    February 6, 2014 at 9:41 pm

    I do not disagree with the broader point. If the cost remains unfavorable to the US in four years, based on the calculations four years from now, then war will be averted for some more time. It seems that you agree that the strategic alignment of the US has not changed at this time – what we are witnessing is a tactical pause.

  254. kooshy says:

    Jay says:
    February 6, 2014 at 10:16 pm

    I was not taking this personal, not at all, my point was wounds and pains for a state power are calculating matters not an emotional matter that can only be held in one’s eye, however US like many states before it often make mistake in her calculations. All indications are that for time being (at least 10 years) US doesn’t have the means/will to wage another major war no matter if her un wounded elite wants war or not, the proof to that is that the US military has refused to full fill the political class desire for new wars.

  255. BiBiJon says:

    ataune, kooshy, and jay,

    Just to add my voice to the discussion:

    There is a dichotomy in US’ incurable allergy to any strong/influential/independent regional actor on the one hand, and on the other hand, US’ capacity to do anything about a rising power such as Iran at a particular time in the regional/global current realities, and her own public/economic/military readiness.

    It is almost impossible to avoid exaggerating either Iran’s invulnerability, or US’ weak hand, try as one might when discussing such issues. But reasonable balance can be struck with considering Iran’s and US’ positions as ‘sufficiently’ balanced for the foreseeable future as to warrant serious considerations for plans B, C, and D for both sides.

    US’s allergy to regional powers are historically ameliorated by:

    a) Co-option, rapprochement, etc. in the short to medium term
    b) Relentless competition, propaganda war, etc. in the long term

    Both Iran and the US can afford to strategize long term, unlike Persian Gulf states and Israel. It is the different time horizons which will be the primary cause of realignments in the region and beyond. If such realignments do not happen, then war will be foisted on Iran and US by outside actors.

  256. Jay says:

    BiBiJon says:
    February 7, 2014 at 8:03 am

    Your final paragraph and the observation regarding “time horizons” is on point – with the evident proviso that numerous factors will continue to modulate the time horizon, sometimes in an unpredictable fashion.

  257. fyi says:

    Fiorangela says:

    February 6, 2014 at 7:29 pm

    You do not understand this; US, since the demise of the Confederacy, is dominated by people who essentially believe in the so-called Manifest destiny and American Superiority and Exceptionalism.

    They American people do not need propaganda to be persuaded to believe that every one wants to become an American.

    Of course, the other side of this is the utter incompetence that these Northern Imperialists have shown since the days of the Reconstruction in Nation-Building and making others “Become Americans”.

  258. ataune says:


    It is true that when trying to have a discussion one has tendency to emphasize on the rationality factor; and this also applies to the other side, when you are acting based on your will you go mostly by impulse and material strength. In general, depending on you contemplating or acting, you will push more on either side of this spectrum. But we shouldn’t forget that when westerners discovered the Reason (which by the way was never forgotten by other cultures and civilizations , islamic and chineese to name a couple) they based the foundation of their political structures and goals on that. I am not saying that the actions of the American polity right now is based on rational politics and ethics and devoid of “psychological compulsion to project power”. I’m simply pointing out to a lull showing that they might have sensed their actions during the last decade have flagrantly contradicted the foundation of their polity. but I do agree with you on the fact that I’m rather suspicious that the ruling elite has completely realized the collapses these contradictions might lead them to if they are not resolved soon.

  259. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    February 6, 2014 at 6:59 pm

    If EU were more sensible than US, it would not have waged an economic war against Iran, support anti-government forces in Syria, and provoke Russia on Ukraine.

    On Ukraine, US-EU policy is Madness – will EU states prefer a rump “Free Ukraine” in the Western portion of Ukraine?

    Because that is the best that they will ever get.

  260. Fiorangela says:

    It may turn out that the NSA mass communications gathering/spying system will be the salvation of foreign policy; it will throw open the door to all the dirty deeds formerly done in secret.

    The least offensive thing about Nuland’s conversation was her use of a base expletive (tho that tells us something about the culture of her interior landscape). More important is the insight that USAian gain into the manipulative activities of their government — It’s something like a kid discovering that those shiney toys under the Christmas tree were stolen by their parents who are professional cat burglars.

    And if NSA spies on Russia, Germany, etc., then turnabout is fair play Everybody’s closet doors are open, and Dick and Jane get to eavesdrop on plans for the next heist — and also, the actions of the Target in protecting against that heist.

    This is a conversation between two senior German diplomats: Helga Schmid, Deputy Secretary General for Catherine Ashton’s European External Action Service and Jan Tombinski, the EU ambassador to Ukraine.


    This is Helga. I wanted to tell you in confidence that the Americans are going around saying that we are too weak and that their stance is stronger on sanctions. I spoke with Cathy and we are on the same line which we have to prepare in a very intelligent way, as we have already discussed it, but you need to know that we are very angry at the Americans for accusing the EU of being too soft, they have said so to reporters. Maybe you could tell the US Ambassador that we are not soft at all and that we have recently come up with a strong statement about Bulatov (inaudible). It makes me angry that the media here says that the US is on the side of freedom.

    But Helga you need to realize that we are not in a competition to see how will make the strongest statement…we have other instruments… it is good that…

    But you have to see that I don’t want Cathy to be hurt or stuck into a corner as this would take on a different political meaning. Cathy will raise this issue with Kerry and I want you to know that while we are not in a competition it is very unfair on their part to spread such things

    Let me tell you that I have learned just a few minutes ago that the opposition will make a new offer to the President and I will immediately write that to Cathy and to you.

    Okay thanks!

    Thanks bye!

  261. Fiorangela says:

    BBC transcript of the conversation between Victoria Nuland Kagan and Geoff Pyatt — it was published with an interleaved “analysis” by a BBC diplomatic correspondent in case any hapless reader deviated into thinking for himself. (analysis removed—>)

    Pyatt: I think we’re in play. The Klitschko [Vitaly Klitschko, one of three main opposition leaders] piece is obviously the complicated electron here. Especially the announcement of him as deputy prime minister and you’ve seen some of my notes on the troubles in the marriage right now so we’re trying to get a read really fast on where he is on this stuff. But I think your argument to him, which you’ll need to make, I think that’s the next phone call you want to set up, is exactly the one you made to Yats [Arseniy Yatseniuk, another opposition leader]. And I’m glad you sort of put him on the spot on where he fits in this scenario. And I’m very glad that he said what he said in response.

    Nuland: Good. I don’t think Klitsch should go into the government. I don’t think it’s necessary, I don’t think it’s a good idea.

    Pyatt: Yeah. I guess… in terms of him not going into the government, just let him stay out and do his political homework and stuff. I’m just thinking in terms of sort of the process moving ahead we want to keep the moderate democrats together. The problem is going to be Tyahnybok [Oleh Tyahnybok, the other opposition leader] and his guys and I’m sure that’s part of what [President Viktor] Yanukovych is calculating on all this.

    Nuland: [Breaks in] I think Yats is the guy who’s got the economic experience, the governing experience. He’s the… what he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside. He needs to be talking to them four times a week, you know. I just think Klitsch going in… he’s going to be at that level working for Yatseniuk, it’s just not going to work.

    Pyatt: Yeah, no, I think that’s right. OK. Good. Do you want us to set up a call with him as the next step?

    Nuland: My understanding from that call – but you tell me – was that the big three were going into their own meeting and that Yats was going to offer in that context a… three-plus-one conversation or three-plus-two with you. Is that not how you understood it?

    Pyatt: No. I think… I mean that’s what he proposed but I think, just knowing the dynamic that’s been with them where Klitschko has been the top dog, he’s going to take a while to show up for whatever meeting they’ve got and he’s probably talking to his guys at this point, so I think you reaching out directly to him helps with the personality management among the three and it gives you also a chance to move fast on all this stuff and put us behind it before they all sit down and he explains why he doesn’t like it.

    Nuland: OK, good. I’m happy. Why don’t you reach out to him and see if he wants to talk before or after.

    Pyatt: OK, will do. Thanks.

    Nuland: OK… one more wrinkle for you Geoff. [A click can be heard] I can’t remember if I told you this, or if I only told Washington this, that when I talked to Jeff Feltman [United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs] this morning, he had a new name for the UN guy Robert Serry did I write you that this morning?

    Pyatt: Yeah I saw that.

    Nuland: OK. He’s now gotten both Serry and [UN Secretary General] Ban Ki-moon to agree that Serry could come in Monday or Tuesday. So that would be great, I think, to help glue this thing and to have the UN help glue it and, you know, Fuck the EU.

    Pyatt: No, exactly. And I think we’ve got to do something to make it stick together because you can be pretty sure that if it does start to gain altitude, that the Russians will be working behind the scenes to try to torpedo it. And again the fact that this is out there right now, I’m still trying to figure out in my mind why Yanukovych (garbled) that. In the meantime there’s a Party of Regions faction meeting going on right now and I’m sure there’s a lively argument going on in that group at this point. But anyway we could land jelly side up on this one if we move fast. So let me work on Klitschko and if you can just keep… we want to try to get somebody with an international personality to come out here and help to midwife this thing. The other issue is some kind of outreach to Yanukovych but we probably regroup on that tomorrow as we see how things start to fall into place.

    Nuland: So on that piece Geoff, when I wrote the note [US vice-president’s national security adviser Jake] Sullivan’s come back to me VFR [direct to me], saying you need [US Vice-President Joe] Biden and I said probably tomorrow for an atta-boy and to get the deets [details] to stick. So Biden’s willing.

    Pyatt: OK. Great. Thanks.

    If you need to find out what BBC thinks you should take away from this snippet of conversation, link is here.

  262. Rd. says:

    Seems like BiBijons optimism is catching!!!!..

    “By Royal Orders: Saudis Abandon Their Fighters”

    Despite ‘some’ belief that IRI had thrown the proverbial towel, it seems the heroic flexibility had a few more twists and turns in it than the eye could see.

  263. Fiorangela says:

    fyi says:
    February 7, 2014 at 10:03 am

    fyi, It occurs to me that I am an accidental USAian: my parents were brought here by their parents because their lives were untenable in Italy.

    I listened to a discussion between Stephen Kinzer and a largely Iranian-American audience about Kinzer’s version of the overthrow of Mossadeqh. One member of the audience said, “Nobody seems to appreciate the pain we feel that we felt forced to leave our country that we love.”

    I didn’t choose the history of the country where I happened to be born. I reject many of its actions and attitudes. But this is where I was born, and where my children were born. What obligations and responsibilities does that impose on me?

    You’re right, I don’t have a firm grasp of much of USAian history — I went to schools where I was deeply immersed in religious doctrine. Having struggled long and hard to apprehend the intensity of that indoctrination, and to replace it with a more realist perspective, explains why I am so repulsed every time you write about “fallen man.” What did he fall from — a tree? a rock? a cliff?

    My latter-day study of USAian history suggests to me that US went off the rails of the Jeffersonian-Madisonian vision almost immediately. Andrew Jackson took a major step down the road of evangelical government policy, and almost every subsequent president and administration has more or less followed that evangelical, quirkily-interpreted Old Testament based version of choseness/exceptionalism. JFK might have been the one exception to exceptionalism, but that didn’t work out so well.

  264. fyi says:

    Fiorangela says:

    February 7, 2014 at 11:19 am

    If you do not like the notion of Fallen Man as a religious insight, consider it a principle – like the conservation of energy – that is derived from empirical observations.

    The critical step on the road to empire was the defeat of the CSA in the War Between the States; in my opinion.

  265. Fiorangela says:

    fyi, I think the notion of Fallen Man as a “religious insight” is one of the most deadly and pernicious “principles” ever contrived.

    My Mom — sixth grade education — had a far more profound insight: Mom used to say, God don’t make no junk.

    As I understand some basics of Hindu thinking, it teaches that a person’s lifetime is a process of perfecting and integrating its humanity. I wish I had been able to raise my children with that insight rather than in the atmosphere I was schooled in, that “man is inherently sinful.” That is disgusting to me.

  266. Karl.. says:

    New sanctions in place.

    I wonder how long will keep up with this.

  267. Fiorangela says:

    PS. Perhaps my Mother was in tune with her Graeco-Roman legacy: Socrates taught, “All men seek the good; to do otherwise is absurd.”

  268. fyi says:

    Fiorangela says:

    February 7, 2014 at 12:14 pm

    Just because you did not enjoy the Jesuits does not mean that they were wrong.

  269. Fiorangela says:

    fyi, I never had a Jesuit teacher, and just because a human being is a Jesuit does not make him right.

    Isn’t that a form of blasphemy, to worship either the bible as a god or the Jesuits or their teachings as a god?

  270. Fiorangela says:

    PS Moreover, that there is no Female Jesuit is one major indicator of how wrong-headed the Jesuitic system is.

  271. Fiorangela says:

    Speaking (on the other hand) of Jesuits, Smith may be interested in the life, education, and career of Dr. Paul Janssen whose company became Johnson & Johnson pharmaceuticals.

  272. Fiorangela says:

    BiBiJon says:
    February 7, 2014 at 1:01 pm


    This “non-profit” think tank is doing its business in a meeting room of the US Congress! They “train” congressional staffers (i.e. those pimply-faced critters in the audience).

    Is this how the USA intends to close its budget deficit — by renting out US Congressional facilities? They’ve already sold US foreign policy to the next-highest bidder.

  273. James Canning says:


    I think Russia would benefit if Ukraine becomes a member of the EU, but this event should not take place for many years. But no, to any membership in Nato.

  274. James Canning says:


    The US had already expanded to the Pacific Coast, prior to the Civil War. Many Southerners were exceptionally keen on expanison. Some wanted the US to take Cuba.

    Granted, Alaska was bought in 1867, and Hawaii was acquired toward the end of the century.

    Anti-imperialism was a stron component of American politics.

  275. James Canning says:


    My own view is that statements by Rouhani that he must contend with power centers in Iran that are not very willing to compromise on Iran’s nuclear programme, should be taken at face value.

    Similarly, Obama’s statements that he much favours a deal between Iran and the P5+1, provided it accomplishes what needs to be achieved, should be taken at face value.

  276. Rehmat says:

    Last month, Washington released $550 million out of $100 billion Iranian money frozen in the US and European banks for years as part of US-EU economic sanction against the Islamic Republic. After leading anti-Iran sanction war for Israel since 1980s – now Washington feels that once all sanctions against Iran are lifted, it may not be able to gain a larger piece of Iranian pie after-all.

  277. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    February 7, 2014 at 1:59 pm

    You would be thinking wrongly then.

  278. fyi says:

    Rehmat says:

    February 7, 2014 at 2:33 pm

    You are correct, US will not gain access to Iranian market in any meaningful or substantial manner any time soon – nor will EU.

    That game is over.

    Iranians have to painstakingly construct and/or reverse engineer all elements of an industrial society on their own – no more short cuts and no more fake jobs in the state sector.

  279. ataune says:


    As I told you before, everyone is lined-up behind the leadership to give “de-escalation” a chance. Rohani knows that. Even though most of the Principalist are not very positive about US promises (and I must confess I do agree with them on that) and eventhough you might see them verbally criticizing every steps, but they won’t try to stop Rohani’s actions politically.

    You are also wrong about Obama. An example provided just yesterday in this forum show the degree of respect and attachement of the Obama administration for the EU and/or Russian political views in general. P5+1 is a tool to increase, among other things, the pressure on Iran, it is gradually growing to be a hindrance for the US policy. That’s why America has taken things in her own hands and is talking to the IRI (and legitimizing her after 35 years) directly now. Obama is facing real adversity at home by powerful lobbies that don’t have the interests of America at heart. The deal accomplishing what needs to be achieved is irrelevant to those interests. They just don’t want to see the crisis in the region reach a peaceful conclusions based on an accomodotation with a powerful Iranian state.

  280. Fiorangela says:

    James Canning says: February 7, 2014 at 2:04 pm

    [#1] The US had already expanded to the Pacific Coast, prior to the Civil War. Many Southerners were exceptionally keen on expanison. Some wanted the US to take Cuba.

    [#2] Granted, Alaska was bought in 1867, and Hawaii was acquired toward the end of the century.

    [#3] Anti-imperialism was a stron component of American politics.

    #1 & #2 belie #3.

    The James Polk (1845 – ) administration ginned up a provocation/false flag op. to take Spanish territory on the Pacific coast. There is no record of the indigenous people having been given a vote in the takeover. That’s imperialism.

    The “acquisition” of Hawaii was by overthrow, for economic reasons aka American “interests,” backed by US Marines. Queen Lili’uokalani was not given a vote in the takeover. That’s imperialism.

  281. Fiorangela says:

    Chinese president Xi Jinping travelled to Sochi and met with Russian president Vladimir Putin for the opening of the Olympic games, the first of five meetings between the two leaders planned for the coming year.

    President Barack Obama stayed in Washington, DC (which is even colder than Sochi, btw) and practiced saying “Honest injun Victoria didn’t do it and she’ll never do it again” in Ukrainian.

  282. Karl.. says:


    Good for russia and china, would be great if they could become stronger allies and stand tall against the neocons in the EU and US that seems to getting crazier every day with the regime change plots et.c.

  283. James Canning says:


    If you like to regard America’s annexation of California and other parts of Mexico, as “imperialist” expansion, that is fine with me.

    Seizure of Hawaii did smack of “imperialism”, no doubt.

    Was it “imperialist” expansion, when Jefferson bought the Louisiana territory from Napoleon Bonaparte?

  284. James Canning says:


    The “indigenous people” of the Thirteen Colonies did not have much say in the creation of the US (and the secession from the British Empire). Was this an act of “imperialism” by the so-called Founding Fathers?

  285. James Canning says:

    @ataune – – Obama obviously wants a deal between the P5+1 and Iran, along the lines indicated over the past several months. Equally obviously, there are powerful interests that do not want better relations between Iran and the US, and they are well known to both of us.

  286. James Canning says:


    I think my opinion is sound, that Russia would benefit from eventual inclusion of Ukraine in the EU. But not in Nato. I did not expect you to agree with me.

  287. Fiorangela says:

    “Was it “imperialist” expansion, when Jefferson bought the Louisiana territory from Napoleon Bonaparte?”

    Whatever it’s called, it was a very stupid move, X 2, for Bonaparte to have sold 15 million acres (?? — not sure of the very large size), in order to fund his imperial war against Russia, which he lost.

    Seldom acknowledged is the protracted period France spent mourning its loss of empire — surely that wound played a role in Nap. III’s war against Prussia — which France lost, creating an itch that set the stage for WWI, which bloodied France badly so that Clemenceau was the prime mover behind massive reparations against Germany, therefore, Clemenceau’s & France’s role in setting the stage for WWII must be acknowledged.

  288. Fiorangela says:

    Karl.. says:
    February 7, 2014 at 5:40 pm


  289. Empty says:

    RE: Was it “imperialist” expansion, when Jefferson bought the Louisiana territory from Napoleon Bonaparte?

    …and whom exactly did Napoleon Bonaparte buy Louisiana territory from?

    دزد که به دزد می زند شاه دزد است.

    “A thief stealing from another thief is a King of [Master of] thieves.”

  290. Empty says:

    RE: “Iranians have to painstakingly construct and/or reverse engineer all elements of an industrial society on their own – no more short cuts and no more fake jobs in the state sector.”

    Exactly so.

  291. BiBiJon says:

    Ta’arof over the biggest hurdle

    Fiorangela says:
    February 7, 2014 at 1:19 pm

    “Is this how the USA intends to close its budget deficit — by renting out US Congressional facilities? They’ve already sold US foreign policy to the next-highest bidder.”

    Frankly, if they’ve sold their souls, and outsourced their brains to necon think tanks, then might as well rent out the facilities. No?

    In his presentation, Bob Einhorn made an interesting point. Given the fatwas, and even recently, president Rouhani’s and FM Zarif’s outright denial that Iran has ever taken any steps to militarize her nuclear industry, Bob obxerved it will be very difficult for Iran now to admit, as she must if there is to be a deal, that Iran had conducted experiments in manufacturing a nuclear warhead in the past. Bob, helpfully suggested that negotiators must find a tactful way of letting Iran admit without admitting past wrong doing. Not hint of how marvelously such an Iranian mea culpa will exonerate the US from the charge of a “manufactured crisis.”

    Well, the problem cuts both ways. Imagine the US admitting that all the accusations against Iran were based on nothing, or worse, based on manufactured evidence, and thus be deemed accountable for the financial, economic, and reputational harm the US has done to Iran over the years.

    I suggest whose hurdle that is to overcome tactfully should not become a subject of ta’arof, endless back and forth between the negotiating parties. The best thing to do is, as Obama has said about other ‘tortuous’ matters, “look forward as opposed to looking backwards.”

  292. Jay says:

    An interesting read, which confirms for the first time that British intelligence services played an active role in the STUXNET attack.

  293. James Canning says:


    Spain obtained Louisiana from France. But Napoleon Bonaprte took it back, and then sold it to the US.

  294. James Canning says:


    Napoleon Bonaprte expected Lousians to supply necessities etc to the rich colony of Haiti. But slave revolt wrecked this plan. Also, Napoleon figured France might lose Lousiana to Britain, so selling it made sense.

  295. James Canning says:

    Has anyone else noticed the strange omission in stories about Victoria Nuland, Ukraine, etc etc? That she is married to Robert Kagan, one of the leading neocon warmongers? She used to work for Dick Cheney when he was promoting endless war in the Middle East.

  296. James Canning says:


    Do you agree with Khamenei, that the solution to Iran’s economic problems will not come from lifting sanctions.

  297. fyi says:

    Karl.. says:

    February 8, 2014 at 2:34 pm

    I also agree with Khamenei, that the solution to Iran’s economic problems will not come from lifting of Axis Powers sanctions nor in her integration – under the present circumstances – into the world economy.

    The chief merit of the Axis Powers enmity towards Iran has been to force Iranians out of their comfort zone and disabuse them of their various fantasies.


  298. Castellio says:

    James: Could you really have missed Empty’s point. Spain, France, England and the US all stole land from the first nations, employing very active policies of genocide to do so.

    That is imperialism.

  299. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Analysis: Is Syria now a direct threat to the U.S.?

    This is a propaganda piece for intervening in Syria based on bogus “threats to the US homeland” by “Al Qaeda” there – as I predicted would be floated eventually to justify the (perceived) NECESSARY attack on Syria to secure Israel in the event of an Iran war.

  300. Richard Steven Hack says:

    And again…

    Syria has become ‘matter of homeland security,’ DHS Secretary Johnson says

  301. Karl.. says:


    This is on point:

    “The chief merit of the Axis Powers enmity towards Iran has been to force Iranians out of their comfort zone and disabuse them of their various fantasies.”

    Also, my view is that they could benefit but are forbidden by the west to do so, just because west want regime cahnge so theyll keep Iran weak.

  302. Fiorangela says:

    James Canning says:
    February 8, 2014 at 1:34 pm

    True enough.
    But it still turned out to be a stupid move on Napoleon’s part. He persuaded himself of a set of complications that may or may not have worked out in France’s favor, because he did not wish to deal with both the problems of maintaining the French territory on the American continent and the waging of war on Russia. He made the wrong bet.

  303. James Canning says:


    Invading Russia clearly was exceptionally foolish, on Napoleon’s part. But he also saw the merits of currying favour with the Americans, by selling Lousiana to them. And he could see that France could not hope to keep Lousiana, given the loss of French Canada decades earlier.

  304. James Canning says:


    Some of those who are following this angle may not be aware that the acquisition of Lousiana doubled the size of the US. And led to the admission of the state of Louisiana, and the states of Arkansas and Missouri, as slave states. (France had pretty much eliminated slavery in the territory)

  305. James Canning says:


    Obama is willing to see an end to the sanctions. Leading to a much stronger Iran.

  306. Fiorangela says:

    February 8, 2014 at 6:44 pm

    James Canning says:
    February 8, 2014 at 1:34 pm

    —specifically, Bonaparte chose war over what could have been a mutually beneficial relationship.

    Similarly, Churchill could have had peace with Germany and a nonviolent resolution of the Danzig corridor, but he chose war with Germany in order to preempt Germany from achieving a strong trade relationship with Middle East (i.e. via Berlin-to-Baghdad railroad), and to protect and expand England’s empire & access to oil. Churchill’s war signalled the beginning of the end of the British empire.

    Similarly, George H. W. Bush chose war in Persian Gulf/Iraq in 1990 in order to establish the USA as the dominant global power. Rather than war, H. Bush could have supported the Jordanian king’s peace agreement with Saddam Hussein and, by engaging in genuine and mutually beneficial trade and commerce, established a New World Order of peace and prosperity. But Papa Bush was motivated by the “promises” of his service in WWII, when he participated with the western Allies in bombing the hell out of Germany and Japan, reducing them to rubble and incinerating over a million innocent civilians, with the intention of terrorizing them and showing the world just who was the meanest sob on the planet. Mission accomplished.

    Junior Bush was/is even more psychotic than his father: He chose war in Iraq for the same reason Gareth Porter argues in “Perils of Dominance” that US chose war in Viet Nam: because there was nobody big enough to counter US power, and because he swallowed his own propaganda, the reverse of the propagandistic “domino theory” that kept US entangled in SE Asia for so many years. Junior’s dominoes were supposed to knock Middle Eastern states over and they would fall into the magic hat of democracy. That’s working out well.

  307. James Canning says:


    And the establishment of the original colonies tended to result in driving Indians off lands they formerly controlled.

    One of the causes of the Revolutionary War was Britain’s effort to protect the Indians from further encroachment by white settlers eager to claim Indian lands west of the original colonies (and especially in the Ohio Roiver basin).

  308. James Canning says:


    We might remember that Indians did a good job of slaughtering each other, driving various tribes one way or another, for centuries before European colonies were established.

  309. Rehmat says:

    Netanyahu was right; the US sanctions against Iran are softening the pro-Hizbullah Israel haters in power in Tehran. Last September both Iranian president and his foreign minister wished Jews a happy Rosh Hashanah.

    Two days ago, almost every Jewish-controlled media reported the news that Iranian president Sheikh Hassan Rouhani has donated $400,000 to a Jewish hospital – not in Israel or New York, but in Tehran. Isn’t it shocking to learn that those Israel-hating Iranian have a “Jewish Hospital” in Tehran? However, the ‘Jew York Times’ Tehran bureau chief Thomas Erdbrink has informed the Zionist crowd that Tehran’s Dr. Rouhollah Sepir hospital is “the only Jewish hospital” in Iran.

  310. Empty says:

    RE: We might remember that Indians did a good job of slaughtering each other, driving various tribes one way or another, for centuries before European colonies were established.

    Just as we should remember how multiple African tribes were doing a good job of slaughtering each other before the white man came and saved them from themselves? Also like the “civil war” and “infighting” in Syria? Or the “infighting” of factions in Libya? Or, the slaughter and “infighting” of Iraqis?

    Furthermore, from whose vantage point were the history of such slaughters written and exactly whose interest did those narratives served?

  311. Empty says:

    …did those narratives serve, rather.

  312. Bussed-in Basiji says:


    Never mind the various “European tribes” who were slaughtering each other until 1945 when the Russians and Americans came and “enforced peace” on them.

    Thank God for General Zhukov and the Red Army.

    Hey if this whole economic crisis thing in Europe gets out of hand, I say Iran should send its troops to Greece and Italy and protect its economic interests there, what do you say?

    Iran sending warships toward U.S. maritime borders

  313. Karl.. says:

    Iran sending ships to the US?
    This got to be made up right? Very bad if not..

  314. Bussed-in Basiji says:


    We also have a gas field in the North Sea off the coast of Aberdeen.

    I think it’s time to deploy our navy to there.

  315. Khomeini says:

    Rd. says:
    February 7, 2014 at 11:10 am

    It was a very interesting article BUT it will be very UNWISE for the world to believe what Saudis say in public because they say and do completely different thing in private.

    The only thing that will make the Saudis abandon its terrorists in Syria is when the Syrian army makes out right gain on the ground.

    I also don’t believe that Turkey is willing to abandon Syrian terrorists yet – the Turks still have the colour full dream of neo-ottoman empire.

    Strangely the article said nothing about Qatar – this one is spending as much as Saudis in beefing up the Syrian terrorists.

  316. Empty says:


    Re: what do you say?

    I say, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander…..

  317. Fiorangela says:

    James Canning says:
    February 8, 2014 at 7:02 pm

    “Obama is willing to see an end to the sanctions. Leading to a much stronger Iran.”

    Wendy Sherman does not seem to have gotten that memo, James. Perhaps you can put her in touch with your sources who know what “Obama is willing to do.”

  318. Karl.. says:


    You are of course right. Dont bother with that person.
    Same crazy people would say Bush and Clinton just wanted to make Iraq stronger..

  319. James Canning says:


    Are you arguing that Wendy Sherman wants sanctions on Iran continued, even if Iran makes a deal with P5+1?

  320. nico says:

    I am not sure to understand some people here throwing up over Iran backwardness and scientific incompetence and lack of thinking.
    When one read the facts, Iran has been experiencing the highiest rate of scientific growth at world stage for years.
    Higher growth rate even than China.
    Iran should be ranked in 2013 between 15th and 20th world country in scientific production (depending on the survey organization)
    2 ranks above compared to 2012.

    “According to Scopus, Iran ranked 17th in terms of science production in the world in 2012 with the production of 34,155 articles above Switzerland and Turkey.[151]
    According to the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI), Iran increased its academic publishingoutput nearly tenfold from 1996 to 2004, and has been ranked first globally in terms of output growth rate (followed by China with a 3 fold increase).”

    The Iranian scientific take off could be tracked back to 1998 with an uninterrupted speeding up from that year.
    With policies to achieve that result being likelyy implemented years earlier (say the early 1990 or just after the end of the Iran-Irak war).

    As a conclusion what is exactly the point of those unsatisfied here about Iran scientific status.
    Is that only drama queening and crying about what should have been done in the past century ?

    As for Iran unsatisfactory environment for private entrepreneurship.
    Surely it exists and should be adressed with structural reforms.
    Does the privatization program not adressing globally this aspect and imply the mutuation of Iranian economy from a governement socialist owned economy to a private ownership and more liberal economy ?

    Change and economic mutation does not come overnight.

    It is importent to know one own history and current ansolute status.
    However what is truly important is the heavy economic/political relative trend and evolution on the short, medium and long term basis.

    As an example the medium/short term US policy is very bad and will lead to collapse.

  321. James Canning says:


    Yes, in fact tthe moron in the White House thought the idiotic invasion of Iraq would lead to Iraq’s being a strong ally of Israel and the US.

  322. James Canning says:


    Are you in effect arguing that no colonies should have been established in North or South America, by Europeans? Or, are you simply saying that the course of history was unfair to many of the “native” peoples?

  323. Fiorangela says:

    James Canning says:
    February 9, 2014 at 1:26 pm

    James, my comment did not even hint at such a thing. My comment had to do with your divorce from reality. I provided the link; what does it sound like Wendy Sherman’s attitude toward Iran is? Does she sound fair-minded? Does she sound like she has the best interests of justice, and of the good standing of the people of the USA, in mind, as she calls Iranians liars and deceivers, and as she and her henchman, D. Cohen, bray about how they will punish any nation that does business with Iran.

    Maybe Andrew Carnegie’s “How to Win Friends and Influence People” is out of style. I thought that the way one gets along in this world is by treating others fairly in the expectation that they would return the same fair treatment. I thought that was one concept that Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, etc. pledged “their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor” to establish at least as an ideal, howsoever short man will fall in actual practice (mankind being ‘fallen’ and all that).

    I don’t recognize the people who spoke in that Senate hearing — I don’t recognize them as Senators, not as Americans, and not even as rational and moral human beings.

    Sherman and Cohen are drunk on power. They are dangerous and odious. They do not represent me.

    The ways in which the American people can have their voices heard is being further and further constricted. People who represent my values and perspectives are not invited to appear before senate committees. But did you notice in that video that I linked that members of the MEK, recently on the USA terror list and a group that was a traitor to its own country, were seated immediately behind Sherman and Cohen?

    The US Congress/Senate may think it has only AIPAC to deal with and to placate. If it refuses to give a substantive voice to the growing masses of the American people who are increasingly disaffected with their performance, the people will act in the only way a cornered population can do.

  324. James Canning says:


    I too do not like Sherman’s style, and I question a bit of substance too.

    Fact remains: lifiting sanctions would make Iran stronger. And Obama would accept that.

  325. James Canning says:


    One sometimes looks for the sick bag, when confronted with American officials pretending to be concerned about terrorism, while they encourage terrorism.

  326. fyi says:

    Fiorangela says:

    February 9, 2014 at 1:58 pm

    Different countries have different personal and national pathologies; they are all in State of Fall.

    I think Mr. E. Hoffman Price , in the science-fiction novel “Operation Misfit”, has characterized very many Americans quite accurately:

    “Most of you look down on anyone, or anything different from you. At the same time, there’s your passion for meddling and trying to force your beliefs on the backward people, your social and religious muddlings. Always the pretense of benevolence and always feeling so superior because you are wealthier. You’re incapable of friendship yourselves, so, you try to buy friendship, not knowing any other way.”

    Page 138, Ballantine Edition, 1980

    Incidentally, a similar assessment of US population on the eve of World War II, may be found on the last page of the “Goodbye, Darkness: A Memoir of the Pacific War” by the late William Manchester.

  327. Fiorangela says:

    fyi –

    “Different countries have different personal and national pathologies; they are all in State of Fall.”

    It has been snowing and cold for so long that a State of Fall is ardently to be longed for.

    = = =

    When I traveled to Iran I thought I observed, or felt, an almost-genetic bondedness to the land: Iranians seemed to me to be as comfortable on their land, in their home state, as one is under a down quilt on in his own bed on a cold day. In addition, Iranians are bonded in a community by their national literature that supplies the narrative for their cultural pride and unity.

    The American people have neither of those characteristics: we are all immigrants, none of has a deep sense of belonging (although I may be projecting my own situation, as I have met people whose ancestors go back 200 years in the US and their sense of being essentially invested in the nation is far more certain than my own). As for a unifying national literature, this is where the real problem lies, in my opinion. Like the forebears of the dominant earlier colonists of the continent, the Hebrew and New Testament Scriptures have been adopted as the “national epic” of the Anglo people. Both sets of mythos and wisdom literature have been subject to distorted interpretations that have turned the wisdom into directions to a looney bin — or to justification for genocidal conquest. I believe that the characteristics of “looking down on anyone … different from you” and of “trying to force beliefs on others” — about whom we rejoice in being profoundly ignorant, I might add — are ideas that are rooted in the “adopted epic” of the Anglo people, the so-called Judeo-Christian bible, and that these ideas more than any other define the American identity.

    Persia was several thousand years old before Ferdowsi gathered up the tales and poetry and history of the empire/nation/culture and composed his Shahnameh. The people of the USA still have a long way to go, and many things to suffer, before they will be in a position to bring forth such jewels. Tragically, along the way, we are killing people with abandon. The destruction of Jericho was not a triumph. The most profound tragedy of the American identity is that we worship lying, betrayal and destruction as a religious creed. WWJD?

  328. fyi says:

    Fiorangela says:

    February 9, 2014 at 5:00 pm

    Iranians were just too comfortable: as the Americans would say: “dumb, fat, and happy…”

  329. James Canning says:


    Did the expulsion of the Muslims from Spain owe anything to “Anglo” culture? The expulsion of the Jews?

  330. James Canning says:


    After Japan annexed Korea in 1910, the Japanese conviction Korean culture was “inferior” was made manifest in unplesant ways. Nothing especially “Anglo” about this.

  331. Fiorangela says:

    James, neither Muslims nor Japanese had any bearing on the creation of USAian culture.

    wrt to expulsion of Muslims from Spain, the same underlying mythos from the same source applies: based on distorted readings of Hebrew and New Testament literature, the Spanish set out to claim Iberia for Spain — and wealth.

    You make a good point re Japan and Korea: presumably, the underlying ideology of Japanese culture was not Hebrew and New Testament scripture.

    I hold in mind some of the stories of Greek and Roman mythology. The foundation of the Greek family of myth, the house of Atreus, was the definition of dysfunctional. On at least two occasions body parts of the children of the family are served for dinner. But to my knowledge, modern-day Greeks do not celebrate the Feast of the Roasting of Pelops and encourage Greek countrymen to Barbecue a Child’s Shoulder on Our Special Holiday! Maybe I spent too many lunch hours listening to the reading of that day’s Saint from the Roman Martyrology, replete with boilings in oil and severing of body parts. Certainly the Shahnameh has its full measure of violence and brutality. I like to think the Iranians are aware enough, like the Greeks, to understand the moral of the tales rather than merely rehearse and triumphalistically celebrate their gore.

  332. Fiorangela says:

    “The shocking aspect of this is that Israel secretly permitted the U.S. to erect such an array of satellite receivers in Israel’s second largest city (I haven’t been able to identify where specifically the facility is located yet). Though, it’s already known that the U.S. maintains another listening facility in the Negev, on Mt. Keren, that engages in land-based spying on Iran using radar, Ronen Bergman has exposed this new facility for the first time.

    There are differences between the two. The Negev base, according to this Time article (written by the somewhat reliable duo of Karl Vick and Aaron Klein) is designed to pick up the possible launch of Iranian missiles targeted at Israel. This facility has a two-fold purpose. It is meant to reassure Israel that the U.S. will use its most advanced tracking technology to enable Israel to defend itself. It will also presumably prevent Israel from launching a surprise attack on Iran that the U.S. would be unaware of.

    The Jerusalem spy station serves an entirely different purpose. Its satellite dishes track U.S. satellites around the world and presumably up and download information from them that can be relayed to other facilities where the data can be analyzed. A second Israeli source informs me that this facility is part of Israel’s participation in what has been called ‘Five Eyes,’ but which, if true, should now be called ‘Six Eyes.’ Here is what I wrote about this in an earlier post, in which I reported that Israel had launched a satellite meant to spy on Iran:

    My source added that Israel is the 6th – unofficial and undeclared – member of Five Eyes. This means that the original trusted members of the intelligence alliance–the U.S., Canada, New Zealand, Australia and the UK–decided to open their ranks to Israel, a nation not known particularly to play by the rules when it comes to intelligence matters.

    I should add that one U.S. reporter and one analyst, both with intelligence expertise, had not heard of any such Israeli role. So what I can say is that both Yossi Melman (Hebrew) and my own source have confirmed Israel’s membership in Five Eyes. Either they are tooting Israel’s horn undeservedly; or the U.S. wants this protocol kept secret and refuses to allow a murmur about it to seep out.”

  333. Empty says:

    James Canning,

    RE: Are you in effect arguing that no colonies should have been established in North or South America, by Europeans? Or, are you simply saying that the course of history was unfair to many of the “native” peoples?

    I am suggesting that if the Europeans wanted the lands and resources, they should have obtained them using ethical approaches, paid the fair price (without deception and force) for them, and compensated the populations accordingly. I am suggesting that if some populations refused to do so, they should have refrained from slaughtering them and forcing them off their lands. I am suggesting that if the natives wanted in return to purchase lands and resources from the Europeans IN EUROPE, they should have been given equal rights to do so.

    In a nutshell, they should have treated them with respect and as equals. I know this suggestion is so far above and beyond the comprehension of racist and supremacist minds that I (and others) could go on clarifying to the ends of earth and still it would be like trying to awaken someone who is pretending to be sleep.

    Also, whatever does “the course of history was unfair” mean? History doesn’t have a course. People kill and slaughter then they write about some parts and cover up and rationalize other parts. Then they call it “history” as if it were some super human entity with its own mind and MO. Well, the jig is up. Deal with it.

  334. Bussed-in Basiji says:

    SL’s recent speech

    “One of the things which American politicians say in their speeches to our officials is that they do not intend to change the regime of Iran. First, they are lying. If they could, they would not hesitate even for a moment to destroy the foundation of the Islamic Republic. Second, they cannot. Arrogant regimes can only topple those governments which are not reliant on the masses of the people…

    “…This is a piece of advice which we have always offered to officials. Only one thing can solve the problems of the country which is paying attention to domestic capacities – thankfully, these capacities are many and countless – and utilizing these capacities in a wise way. Fortunately, the executive officials in charge of economic issues have paid attention to this issue and they have reached the conclusion that this is the only way.

    The way to solve the economic problems of the country – this set of problems – is not to turn our attention to the outside, to do something to make sanctions be lifted and to adopt other such measures. Fortunately, the officials in charge of economic affairs of the country have paid attention to this issue. The way to solve problems is to turn our attention to the inside and to strengthen the domestic infrastructures of the economy. Our officials want to do this and by Allah’s favor, they will move forward and achieve success on this path.

    Our hopes cannot be pinned on the enemy. The enemy cannot be expected to help us. The Americans say in some of their statements and sophistries that they are the friends of the people of Iran. They are lying and this can be understood from their actions. They threaten Iran and then they expect the Islamic Republic to decrease its defense capabilities. Is this not ridiculous? Is this not silly? While they issue threats, they say that we should decrease our defense capabilities. But this is not what we will do. By Allah’s favor, different officials, different sectors and the armed forces will increase their defense capabilities on a daily basis.”

  335. Empty says:

    Thank you for posting the leader’s speech, brother.

  336. Rehmat says:

    On Saturday, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatullah Ali Khamenei, while addressing hundreds of the Air Force commanders and rank-and-file, warned Iranian nation that the United States wants nothing less than a (pro-Israel) regime change in Iran.

  337. James Canning says:

    Bussed-In Basiji,

    I think Rouhani comprehends that Obama would much prefer to make a deal with Iran. Even if this fact is not something Khamenei would mention in a speech.

  338. James Canning says:


    You seem to be applying ethical standards of today, to the situation that obtained four or five centuries ago.

    Do you regard the Ottoman conquest of the Balkans as morally wrong? The Arab conquest of the Levant?

  339. James Canning says:


    Jews were allowed to remain in Spain, provided they pretended to be Christians. This was true in Portugal too. Muslims also were able to stay, if they pretended to be Christians.

    Do I perceive you as saying the problem with American culture is rooted in the Old Testament?

  340. James Canning says:

    Bussen-in Basiji,

    You posted Khamenei’s statement: “The Americans expect the Islamic Republic to decrease its defense capabilities.” They do? In what way?

  341. Fiorangela says:

    James Canning says:
    February 10, 2014 at 1:52 pm

    James, do I perceive you as once more failing to answer the argument but instead twisting it to your own purposes?

    response: asked & answered.

    = = =

    James wrote: “Jews were allowed to remain in Spain, provided they pretended to be Christians. This was true in Portugal too. Muslims also were able to stay, if they pretended to be Christians.”

    That’s not the way Jews generally tell the story. As well, it fails to give proper weight to the large number of Jews who migrated to Italy and into the Ottoman empire, as well as South America (from Portugal, if I’m not mistaken) and to Netherlands and Poland. Some Jewish writers argue that Columbus was Jewish, or that he had a Jewish navigator, or that Jews aboard Columbus’s flotilla settled in islands where the ships landed.

    I have very little knowledge of the expulsion of Muslims.

    = = =

    James wrote: “Do I perceive you as saying the problem with American culture is rooted in the Old Testament?”

    I try to consider Hebrew scriptures and New Testament on the level of mythos, not religion. Scholars of mythology are very careful to refrain from disrespecting the religious beliefs of adherents to those books.

    My observation of present-day use of the mythos of Hebrew scripture, however, is that belief in the stories is demanded of adherents. I’m not sure but I think that might be unique among other mytho-religious systems. Moreover, Benjamin Netanyahu has made numerous public statements that the real-world establishment of Israel is based on a reading of Hebrew scripture (mythos) as history; Israeli school children are taught Hebrew bible as history.

    My friend Unknown Unknowns, a deep scholar of Quran and Islam, might become vexed at this statement (or might merely laugh at its childishness) — I think Islam is more reality-based than Hebrew scriptures or New Testament; I don’t think Islam operates in the category of myth. The activities of Muhammad were recorded in a time and place when literate people could and did record them and relate them to real-world events, peoples, practices, and places.

    With all that for a preamble, the one word answer to your question is Yes*.

    *as quirkily interpreted for political purposes

  342. Fiorangela says:

    Brat-lette’s © Unfamiliar Quotations

    London Saturday Review 24 August 1895

    “We English have always waged war against our competitors in trade and transport. Our main competitor today is no longer France but Germany. . . . In a war against Germany we would be in a position to win a lot and to lose nothing.”

  343. Fiorangela says:

    Brat-lette’s © Unfamiliar Quotations

    London Saturday Review 1 February 1896

    “If tomorrow every German were eliminated, there would be no British business nor English enterprise which would not profit (lit. “grow”). If every Englishman were to vanish tomorrow, the Germans would reap gains. . . . One of the two must quit the field. Get ready for the fight with Germany, for Germaniam esse delendam.”

  344. Fiorangela says:

    Brat-lette’s © Unfamiliar Quotations

    London Staruday Review 11 September 1897

    “Everywhere the English flag has followed the Bible, and trade has followed the flag . . .the German trader fights the English . . .States have waged wars for years over a town or rights to a throne; and should we not wage war when an annual trade of 5 billion is at stake?

  345. Fiorangela says:

    Brat-lette’s © More familiar Quotations

    Like mother (country — England), like daughters (USA and Israel).

  346. Cyrus says:

    “The Americans expect the Islamic Republic to decrease its defense capabilities.”

    James, the Iranians have been saying that since Fordo is designed to be resistant to bombing, the only reason the US has been insisting on stopping the site, is to make it easier to bomb Iran’s nuclear program. Otherwise, Fordo is under constant IAEA monitoring and according to Elbaradei who visited there himself, poses no particular danger.

  347. James Canning says:


    You are arguing that Khamenei meant “defense of Iran’s nuclear programme”. This sounds plausible.

    If Iran adheres to a deal with the P5+1, there would be no need to “defend” the nuiclear sites.

  348. James Canning says:


    Many Jews left Spain, rather than convert (or pretend to convert). And yes, many of those who left, settled in cities in the Ottoman Empire.

    Interesting argument that you make, that the Old Testament is a source of many current problems faced by the US. Or caused by the US. Particularly Israel/Palestine.

  349. James Canning says:


    what argument did I “fail to answer”?

  350. Sineva says:

    James Canning says:
    February 10, 2014 at 6:18 pm
    I imagine that the SL was talking about irans defensive capabilities in general after all iran lives in a very dangerous part of the world.As for irans nuclar program there is no long term deal on the table and the west has still refused to officially acknowledge irans nuclear rights and to renounce its goal of “zero enrichment” for iran,in addition one can never underestimate the stupidity and aggressiveness of the israelis.Fordow is the gaurentee that any attack on irans nuclear program will fail so one can see why the west wants it closed,without fordow there is a good chance that a large enough attack could destroy irans nuclear program

  351. James Canning says:


    I think it is very clear indeed that the P5+1 will accept Iranian enrichment to low levels.

    If Iran makes a deal with P5+1, chances of Israeli attack are nil or virtually nil. For that matter, I doubt Israel would attack Iran in any event. (Assuming Iran is not building nukes or getting too close)

  352. Fiorangela says:

    James Canning says:
    February 10, 2014 at 1:52 pm
    James wrote: “Do I perceive you as saying the problem with American culture is rooted in the Old Testament?”

    James Canning says:
    February 10, 2014 at 6:26 pm
    “Interesting argument that you make, that the Old Testament is a source of many current problems faced by the US. Or caused by the US. Particularly Israel/Palestine.”

    = = =

    James, it’s important to pay attention to qualifiers and even asterisks.
    The qualifications made included: 1. Hebrew scripture understood as mythos

    “The pattern of basic values and attitudes of a people, characteristically transmitted through myths and the arts.”

    A mythos unifies a culture; that is, it establishes the foundational ideas that a large community shares and in whose idiom they think and communicate.

    Several dominant tales from Hebrew scripture that heavily influence the USAian mythos are:
    –the idea of chosenness or specialness in the eyes of the god

    –the idea that THIS god is the god af ALL peoples everywhere, (but only those people specifically chosen by the god are special — exceptional — in the eyes of that god

    –the idea that this god granted the right to his special people to take the lands of others who were not in the “special people” category, and even to do so by deceit, theft, and homicide, even on a mass scale

    –the idea that it was appropriate, even necessary for this special people to insist on the supremacy of their god, even to the extent of killing the practitioners of worship of another god

    –the idea that this special group of people was granted imperium, that is, the power to enforce one’s requisites to the extent of decisions over life and death (note that Virgil’s Aeneid, written in about the same era as the stories of the New Testament are said to have occurred, also affirmed the idea of imperium. Note also that King James instructed the translators of the bible to emphasize that power to rule — imperium was vested in the monarch by the god of Hebrew scripture. This is the “divine right of kings.”

    I also noted that stories from Hebrew scripture have been “quirkily interpreted.” “Quirky” is one of the nicer terms that can be applied to both Benzion and Benjamin Netanyahu, both of whom rely heavily on stories from Hebrew scripture to promote extremely ugly and destructive ideas and actions. see here for example.—- ooops, I can’t find it now: in the past 10 days, Mondoweiss posted an article about a Palestinian who mentioned to a Rabbi that his family was from Jericho. The rabbi said that Israel should wipe him out just as the Canaanites had been destroyed. In the same time frame, John Kerry was told he was the same as Haman, and was persecuting the Jewish people just as Haman did, and so should be harmed. (Gives an insight into the crimes of Haman). These individuals are, of course, off the rails. In the USA, Christian zionists who follow John Hagee, Rod Parsley, etc. are similarly deranged and not to be understood as the highest expressions of their respective creeds. But they possess great wealth, access to media, and in the former case, possess an extensive and very destructive arsenal. Both groups are a danger to society.

    It is my belief that the interior architecture of Iranian people is different from that of peoples whose mythos is formed by Hebrew scripture because the tales and myths of the Iranian people and culture are different from the Hebrew myth system. Obviously, this makes a profound difference in the ways that people view the world.

    It seems to me that Iranian leaders and diplomats are aware of the difference in the thinking processes of Hebrew scripture-based cultures such as the USA, but leaders of the USA are so committed to their notions of supremacism and choseness that they are incapable of recognizing that the Iranian mythos is not the same as their own. Wendy Sherman’s comments in several Senate meetings give testimony to this phenomenon. And several years ago, Ephraim Sneh, who has played a major role in the scourging of Iran, closed a panel convened at the Wilson Center with this thought: “When Iran becomes secular and democratic, then it can have aaaaanyy kind of nuclear technology that it wishes.” I think this comment encapsulates the traits described above.

  353. kooshy says:

    Very good news

    Iran gradually becoming prime destination for Muslim medical tourists
    Image via Reuters/IRNA

    Feb 11, 2014

    TEHRAN, Iran – Thanks to its geographical position, the conditions in neighboring countries, economically reasonable prices and advanced medical facilities, Iran is gradually becoming a destination for Islamic and regional medical tourists. Hospitals in Iranian cities offer medical and health care services for foreign medical tourists. Medical services in Iran are comparable with those offered in advanced countries.

  354. Cyrus says:

    If the US adheres to international law, its none of their goddamn business where Iran decides to build what.

  355. Empty says:

    James Canning,

    RE: You seem to be applying ethical standards of today, to the situation that obtained four or five centuries ago.Do you regard the Ottoman conquest of the Balkans as morally wrong? The Arab conquest of the Levant?

    1. The ethical standards are not “of today’s” and did not somehow emerge in recent decades. “Thou shalt not steal….thou shalt not kill….thou shalt not covet….thou shalt not lie” have been around for how many thousands of years? Have these not been the most basic principles in all religions millennium after millennium? I hope you are not suggesting that the West or British or somehow the modern world created the ethical standards.

    2. I am applying the ethical standards that have always existed to “re-examine, re-evaluate, and re-interpret” events in order to draw useful lessons from which we could learn to make today’s conduct more ethical one. You seem to be quite eager to “whitewash” things to fit a particular purpose to legitimize continuation of the same atrocities.

    3. Yes, I do consider the Ottoman and Arab conquests morally wrong. They were aggressors, they did this in direct opposition by the teachings of the Holy Quran to which they pretended to adhere, and they did it under the guise of religion.

    When some Arabs were busy with their conquests, this is what Imam Ali (a.s.) was saying (Nahjolbalaqe, SheqSheqieh Lecture #3, page 10, H. Ansarian):

    [Translation/interpretation:] “…some of them [the Arab leaders then] broke their promises and obligations, some collaborated with and aided and abetted corrupt leaders and groups, and some became aggressors. It seemed as if they had not heard God’s words saying, ‘the realm at the end is established only for those who do not seek to become arrogant and corrupt the earth; the happy ending belongs only to those who are pious and refrain from corruption.’ Yes, by God, they had heard these, in fact they had memorized them (were “hafiz” of Quran). However, the world’s materials and glitters had blinded their eyes and the luxuries and decorations of the world deceived them.”

  356. nico says:

    James Canning says:

    “You seem to be applying ethical standards of today, to the situation that obtained four or five centuries ago.Do you regard the Ottoman conquest of the Balkans as morally wrong? The Arab conquest of the Levant?”

    Ahah !
    Stated in another fashion, your rational support the colonization of say UK and extermination of britons by say the Ethiopians.
    Because the Ethiopians need water which is difficult to extract in their country.
    Nice rational of yours that support every country in the world to get nukes.

    You are truly a racist and a supremacist.
    You have no moral whatsoever. Or maybe your old testament or atheist rotten morality.
    Might makes right isn’t it ?
    And the mighty chosen and civilized needs to victimize the weak inferior people.


  357. nico says:

    Empty says:
    ” The ethical standards are not “of today’s” and did not somehow emerge in recent decades. “Thou shalt not steal….thou shalt not kill….thou shalt not covet….thou shalt not lie” have been around for how many thousands of years? Have these not been the most basic principles in all religions millennium after millennium? I hope you are not suggesting that the West or British or somehow the modern world created the ethical standards.”

    Ethic comes from tradition and religion.
    There is no universal ethic.

    Obviously Canning is not sharing the same ethic as yours.

    It is a war of religion and tracendency.

    What Canning is taking as civilization is in fact the material opulence founded on lies about universal morality.

    That is inversion of values. That is satanism.
    You know : the christic cross turned upside down.

  358. nico says:

    No matter how much you argue.
    There is a fundamental discrepency at the very basiis of trancendency and world view wiith the kind of Canning.
    With that kind lf thug no funadamental agreement of peacefull coexistence is possible.
    Only defence with adequate weapons.

  359. James Canning says:


    Empty claimed that Europeans should not have created colonies in the New World 500 years ago without “approval” of various tribes etc that lived in the New World. No suggestion whatever as to how this would have been accomplished.

  360. James Canning says:


    Do you regard the Ottoman Empire’s conquest of the Balkans as “morally wrong”?

  361. James Canning says:


    I have stated recently that Britain’s effort to protect the native Indians west of the original colonies that became the US, was one of the reasons the 13 colonies revolted and created the independent US. What was I “whitewashing”?

    I wonder how many people who post on this site regard the Arab conquest of the Levant, and Persia for that matter, as “immoral”.

  362. James Canning says:


    What utter rubbish from Efraim Sneh (that you quoted). P5+1 want to make sure Iran’s nuclear programme is limited, and this would not change if the Iranian government changed.

  363. James Canning says:


    I completely agree many Americans are delusional on certain religious matters, and that this poses huge problems in resolving Israel/Palestine (and Iran) issue.