Trying to Force Iran to “Surrender” Will Backfire—Why U.S. Engagement with Tehran Needs to Respect Iranian Independence

Politico has published our latest article, co-authored with the University of Tehran’s Seyed Mohammad Marandi, and titled “America Can’t Fore Iran’s Surrender:  Time to Cut a Serious Deal Instead.”  To read the piece, click here; we’ve also appended the text below.  As always, we encourage readers to post comments, Facebook likes, etc. both on this site and on the Politico Web site.

America Can’t Force Iran’s Surrender:  Time to Cut a Serious Deal Instead

by Flynt Leverett, Hillary Mann Leverett, and Seyed Mohammad Marandi

It took a searing crisis for the United States to officially acknowledge that it needs Iran’s help.  On Monday, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State William J. Burns reportedly discussed the jihadist takeover of Iraq’s Sunni heartland with his Iranian counterparts on the sidelines of nuclear talks in Vienna.

Good idea.  For years, we’ve been calling on the United States to sit down and discuss its mutual interests with Iran like adults, instead of shouting across the Atlantic.  Two of us—Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett, both former career Middle East specialists for the U.S. government—have been vilified in the American press for calling for pragmatic engagement.  Now there’s an opportunity to work together to face down a common threat, and even Republican leaders like Lindsey Graham, the unfailingly hawkish South Carolina senator, are starting to see things our way.

The United States should engage Iran not just as an unavoidably influential player, however, but as an actor with its own concerns about terrorism—including by jihadis involved in the U.S.-supported campaign against Bashar Assad’s government in Syria.  If the United States tries—as in past episodes of cooperation with Tehran—to elicit Iranian help in Iraq without recognizing Iran’s wider interests—dialogue will fail.

Likewise, Washington needs to deal with Tehran in a genuinely reciprocal way on the nuclear issue.  In the nuclear talks, America and its Western partners have insisted on terms that would cut Iran’s uranium enrichment infrastructure to token levels and freeze it there for 15-20 years.  This will not just fail—it will backfire against Western interests on multiple fronts.  The West should instead focus on crafting a deal recognizing Iran as an independent, truly sovereign and rightfully rising power in its own region—as the United States did with China 40 years ago.

Like the People’s Republic of China, the Islamic Republic of Iran was born out of a revolution promising its people two things: to replace an externally imposed autocracy with an indigenously created political order—for Iran, one grounded in a model of participatory Islamist governance—and to end the subordination of their country’s foreign policy to the dictates of outside powers.  In both cases, successive U.S. administrations rejected these revolutionary projects and strove to undermine them.

In the Chinese case, Washington eventually realized that two decades of trying to isolate, economically strangle and undermine the People’s Republic had not just failed—it had backfired, weakening the U.S. position in Asia and getting America involved in the draining quagmire of the Vietnam War.  America’s opening to China in the 1970s was fundamentally predicated on three things:  U.S. acceptance of the People’s Republic as an enduring political entity representing legitimate national interests; a concomitant U.S. commitment to stop trying to block China’s peaceful rise as an increasingly important player, in Asia and globally; and U.S. acknowledgement that, although America would continue to have important interests in Asia, the region would no longer be an exclusively American sphere of influence.

On this last point, the most important sentence in the 1972 Shanghai Communique—the document that served as the basic charter for realigning Sino-American relations—declares, “neither [the United States nor China] should seek hegemony in the Asia-Pacific region and each is opposed to efforts by any other country or group of countries to establish such hegemony.”  Today, each side is growing skeptical about the other’s ongoing adherence to this commitment. But, for more than three decades, American acceptance of China’s peaceful rise enabled the most extraordinary period of economic vitality and rising prosperity in the history of the Pacific basin.

In the case of Iran, the Obama administration has finally understood that America’s decades-long drive to determine Iran’s developmental trajectory and strategic orientation has failed. But Washington has continued to insist on the quintessentially hegemonic prerogative of micromanaging Iran’s nuclear development. Washington insists on this not to control what Westerners perceive as the proliferation risks of Iran’s nuclear activities—perceptions more effectively and legitimately addressed through adequate monitoring and verification by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)—but to use Tehran’s anticipated acquiescence to American conditions for an “acceptable” program to underscore that the Middle East remains a U.S. sphere of influence.

The United States has tried subordinating the strategic orientation of a major Middle Eastern state before.  Three and a half decades ago, the U.S.-brokered Camp David accords reduced Egypt to a strategic and economic dependency of the United States.  While American foreign policy elites regularly extol the regional “stability” wrought by Camp David, that stability was in fact dangerously illusory.

In the wake of Camp David, Saudi Arabia made promotion of violent jihadism an increasingly prominent tool in Saudi foreign policy—a trend that incubated al Qaeda and is still spawning an ever-proliferating array of ideologically similar threats to international security.  Three decades of rule by a U.S.-puppet regime, with accompanying political repression and economic stagnation, made Egypt itself a prime source for jihadi ideologues (such as al Qaeda leader Ayman Zawahiri) and fighters.  And allowing the Israeli military to consolidate nearly absolute freedom of unilateral initiative—one of Camp David’s first fruits—has been deeply corrosive of America’s regional standing.

For the United States to try doing to Iran what it has done to Egypt would be even more damaging.  First of all, such a course would not be sustainable; even in the unlikely event that some in the Iranian political establishment supported it, other political elites and public opinion would block the requisite consensus for such a radical change in Iranian strategy.  More broadly, diminishing Iranian power would leave America’s ostensible Middle Eastern allies even less constrained in pursuing the most destructive aspects of their regional agendas.  (The jihadis’ advance in Iraq highlights just some of the risks this could pose.)  While Americans may not like hearing it, a truly stable balance of power in the Middle East needs a strong and independent Iran, representing the region’s only indigenously generated and relatively successful model of participatory Islamist governance.

Globally, too, Iran’s strategic autonomy is a stabilizing factor. American efforts to subordinate Iran into a pro-U.S. political and security order in the Middle East will reinforce both the accelerating consolidation of a Sino-Russian axis against what Beijing and Moscow see as America’s ongoing hegemonic ambition as well as a growing convergence of Russian and Chinese interests with Iran’s.  As the world becomes more multipolar, Ayatollah Khomeini’s injunction, “neither east nor west”—words literally carved in stone at the entrance to Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs—becomes ever more relevant to forging a genuinely stable international order in the 21st century.

What would it mean for America and its Western partners to seek a deal recognizing Iran as an independent, truly sovereign and rightfully rising power in its own region?  Above all, it would mean recognizing that Iranians themselves will make decisions about their future energy and technology needs and how best to meet them.  The goal of a settlement should be to ensure that the theoretical proliferation risks associated with Iran’s nuclear activities—which are no greater or less than those associated with similar activities in numerous other countries—are controlled through robust IAEA monitoring and verification.  The goal should not be to force Tehran’s surrender to Washington’s diktats; that will backfire, leaving the United States, Iran and the post-Cold War international order at a dangerous precipice.


277 Responses to “Trying to Force Iran to “Surrender” Will Backfire—Why U.S. Engagement with Tehran Needs to Respect Iranian Independence”

  1. kooshy says:

    Truly this is how Iranian see the US double talk on the support for the Iraqi government and condemning ISIS criminal executions in Iraq, notice how the ISIS terrorist are sitting on the tearing crocodile tail

  2. fyi says:

    kooshy says:

    June 16, 2014 at 10:09 pm

    Mr. Kissinger used to ask: “Is Iran a country or an ideology?”

    One has to ask, is US a country or a religion for she is determined to destroy Shia power in Lebanon, in Iraq and in Iran – with Syrian Alawites thrown in as more Shia than anything else.

    In effect, US and EU having been waging a war against Shia – a religious war by any other name.

    Yes, Mr. Canning, there is a danger of another Crusade if any Western state steps foot into these countries.

  3. Karl.. says:

    From the other thread.

    Yes I am serious about the soccer question, I thought you originally were from Iran.

  4. A-B says:

    So the Tribal-Fascist’s ‘big’ idea of ‘nation-building’ (!!) was – and still is – to divide Iraq along ‘sectarian’ lines; those between Shia’s, Sunnis and the Kurds! One wonders: what sect is ‘the Kurds’? Aren’t the Kurds Muslims? As if you would distinguish between, say, Catholics, Protestants, and the Germans!! Perhaps, according to the Tribalist’s wishful thinking, ‘ethnicity’ is to be considered a religion or a cult? I believe the Tribal-Fascist cult of the Germans was called Nazism! Like ‘Israel’ is a Tribal-Fascist cult … Saudi-Wahhabia is of course another one. No wonder why these two implanted diseases are especially sacred to the [innately Fascist-Exceptionalist] West.

    Now, even the MSM in the West are ‘admitting’ to their abject failure; that the ‘Kurds’ have aligned themselves with ‘Shia’s’ against these FOREIGN/WESTERN [Takfiri/Wahhabi] savages THE WEST HAS DESIGNATED TO REPRESENT ‘Sunnis’; all according to the Western notion of ‘democracy’! These foreign savages (many of them imported from Europe) have no popular support other than that of the Tribal Arab despots of the Peninsula; all installed and supported by the Fascist-Tribal West; championed by the Anglo-Americans and the pathetic French, and with FULL endorsement of the rest of the Eurotrash; make no illusion of the otherwise. So, as I said before, People of Culture, i.e. Humans, in Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon are joining force to purge the region of ALIEN anti-Human Western filth. Hopefully, Turkey and Pakistan and Afghanistan will join soon. This is only NATURAL as the only UNNATURAL thing in the region is the Western Fascist Mafioso.

    ‘Coincidentally’, the region of People of Culture is the area that once was ruled by Iranians in ancient times; the area that even the European Savages – at least among Germans – was recognized as the first historic NATION. Now, the Savages (i.e. the Britishites) in their historical ‘documentaries’ refuse to even MENTION Iran or Persia!! It is apparent that Iranian of the Old understood the concept of Nation, Democracy, Human Rights; notions apparently Europeans still cannot fathom! After all, how could you talk of Human Rights or Democracy if you keep slaves? How can you understand the concept of Nation where you are a petty Racist-Tribalist? Well, you can do as the Lying Greeks did: what you lack in character and quality you ‘jerk-off’ in a book … and another one … and another one …. and another ….


  5. A-B says:

    Oh, and while in the West they try their best to eradicate the name of Iran (and/or Persia) from history AND present, interestingly enough, if you’d be in Brazil (as in Bric) say 2 years ago and happen to watch the education-TV(?) in the morning; you might see scenes from Iran’s archeological sites and hear the great King speak in fluent Portuguese with perfect reverb in a documentary about ancient Iran – made by the Chinese (as in briC)!!


  6. Karl.. says:

    Well I guess we soon find out if this is true or not:

    Attacks on US, Iranians in Iraq.

  7. fyi says:


    Ambassador Bhadrakumar on Iran, Iraq and US:

    I fully agree with this; Mr. Obama can do nothing of substance….

  8. Ataune says:


    Ambassador Bhadrakumanr is correct in one aspect of his assessment: that the ball is in the US court. Since its America which is on the requesting side of the political rope, she has to give before asking. Iran should play it safe by waiting for the opponents move, but, as I said before, the key is for Iran to do the ground work to have the mighty adversary where she wants her to be.

  9. fyi says:


    News on the nuclear negotiations:

    The key statement is:

    Washington hopes that at the end of long-term constraints (30 years) “you may have a new government that may be genuinely committed to giving up nuclear weapons.”

    In other words – regime change…by war or any other means.

    In my view, ISIS and Mosul must be viewed as a conspiracy to suck Iran directly into a war inside Iraq.

    I think Iranian leaders are aware of this and they will approach it as in Syria.

    Axis Powers and GCC and Turkey still do not grasp what just happened in Iraq:

    An Iranian, Mr. Sistani, called an Arab Army into existence….

  10. kooshy says:

    Karl.. says:
    June 17, 2014 at 12:59 am

    “ I thought you originally were from Iran.”

    Karl I am “originally” from Iran but don’t live in Iran, and about soccer, it is now as “big” as the tomb of Cyrus the great for the Iranians, no one can take it down or ignore it, you don’t believe me? take a look at these pictures, look who is watching that Iran’s WC game yesterday,

    Don’t forget the man watching the game is a AKHOND

  11. Karl.. says:


    Thanks, as I thought then the western comments about Iran was wrong about soccer too, as usual.

  12. kooshy says:

    fyi says:
    June 17, 2014 at 10:04 am

    Right, there is no need for Iran armed forces to get involved and go to Iraq, like I replied back a few days ago, the western propaganda plan is spreading propaganda that Iran is cooperating with Americans against the Sunni’s to unify and enforce Sunnis in mean time scaring the resistance to empty the cities by saying the ISIS is outside of town and are killing 1000s of shieh on their way in.

    Surly Iranians are not “putting their tale in this trap”. Like in Lebanon there are enough majority shieh in Iraq that will not give up the gained control, and like in Lebanon and Syria, they will fight any number of terrorist the US and his clients can send to Iraq.

  13. Sineva says:

    UK to re-open Iran embassy says Hague

  14. Karl.. says:


    I wouldnt let in these people/states until there is a “peace” between Iran/west which is not the case now.
    Letting states like UK in into Iran just spell trouble, just as 1953.

  15. Ataune says:

    “Letting states like UK in into Iran just spell trouble, just as 1953.”

    You seem to think in the mid-20 century framework of mind, when Iran was a weak state actor and the UK/US were the powerful victors of WWII. Times have changed. Iran now is an independent and powerful regional state capable of dealing with any misgivings coming out of any diplomatic missions.

  16. Rd. says:

    The one question is where do the Kurdistan Regional Government stand on this? Was there some kinda understanding between barzani and the isis/bathist? At least re take over of the kirkuk? Barzani seems to be a bit of shady character. Perhaps he is not too concerned if Iraq was broken into multiple parts. And what is samanta powers doing in turkey vising for 2-3 days?

    US would love to pull Iran into muddy waters, or so it seems, but what is the real objective, is there an independent Kurdistan something the desperado in US may be contemplating?

  17. Karl.. says:


    Question is if UK and US recognize the Islamic republic, do you think that 100%? If not why should Iran let western ambassadors in?

  18. Richard Steven Hack says:

    ISIS is less than third of Sunni rebels in Iraq

    Evidence appears to be building that the bulk of the current insurgents in Iraq are not just ISIS, but Sunni tribes and former Baathists.

    This is important because it changes the calculus of any response based on the notion that it’s “just” a couple thousand ISIS fighters. It also makes it much more likely that the conflict will last longer without the non-ISIS Sunni members turning on ISIS like they did earlier in post-invasion Iraq (especially since no one is paying them to do so this time – yet, anyway.)

  19. Richard Steven Hack says:

    As expected…

    Israel concerned about US-Iranian cooperation in Iraq

    Directly relating to the Leveretts’ article:

    Israeli Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz told Reuters that the US and other major powers have pledged that any cooperation on the Iraqi issue would not affect their plan to curb Tehran’s nuclear programme.

  20. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Iranian official denies sending troops to Iraq

    Then he’d better explain that to the several “senior Iraqi officials” who have been telling journalists this week that several thousand Iranians are in Iraq and are being led by an IRGC officer who is known to have been in Iraq many times over the years. Otherwise, this denial has zero credibility.

  21. Ataune says:


    Exchanging ambassadors, at a minimum and by itself, means that each side accept the political legitimacy of the other. Iran doesn’t have any qualm about the legitimacy of the UK/US system, neither UK vis-à-vis Iran. If the US is ready to accept the facts in the grounds, i.e. existence and credible power of the system of governance in Iran as the representative of the Iranian State, then there shouldn’t be any problem for the opening of the embassy. This I believe is and has been the position of different Iranian governments too.

    Now it’s true that embassies, in addition to a diplomatic mission, are used for other less benevolent purposes, but as I said earlier, today’s Iran is in a position to deal with those non-standard activities.

  22. nico says:


    “With 2 Russian TV journalists killed in recent days and on the heels of Russia’s cutting off Ukraine’s gas supply for non-payment, Interfax is reporting that:


    Witnesses say flames are reaching 200 metres high. Gazprom shares are tumbling on the news (as should European stocks) and Russia’s Foreign Affairs Committee Chief Aleksei Pushkov warned relations between Ukraine and Russia have entered a new stage and are “moving closer towards a serious conflict.””

  23. Karl.. says:


    Thats a very naive assumption imo, that western ambassadors (of course its not only western states) recognize the leadership just because they have ambassadors in that state. Again 1953 is a clear example for IRan.

    Accept western ambassadors when all sanctions are lifted imo, not before.

  24. Karl.. says:

    June 17, 2014 at 12:18 pm

    Maybe because there are no such politicans in Iraq to begin with. Or just some iraqis spreading rumours.

  25. nico says:

    Hmmm, global geopolitical breakdown.
    unraveling of the globalization as we know it….

    “Systemic risk worse than ’08”

    Truly a US systemic, moral and civilizational failure.
    When one see what was the US position after the cold war and the disastrous circulstances today…

    A western academic and intellectual analysis anyone ?

    Ahahaha !

  26. Ataune says:


    to answer you somehow obliquely, I would say:

    – A Kurdish state should be considered as the biggest threat to Turkey. If the Turks are acting based on their national interests, they have realized that Kurds, being the most numerous in Turkey compared to other countries, are ethnically and culturally the closest to the population living on the Iranian plateau. Therefore, playing with this kind of fire will burn them first and irremediably. Turkey then is (or should be if she’s not) the first line of defense against any Kurdish irredentism.

    – A new hypothetical “Sunni” state created in the barren deserts of eastern Syria and western Iraq is not a threat to Iran but to, (1) Jordan, an artificial state without any historical legitimacy; (2) Saudis, another artificial entity with weak legitimacy; and (3) Israel a third artificial entity in the region. Turkey is also in the line as witnessed by her failed European entryisme and then immediately afterward the failed zero problem policy with the neighbors.

    – These are some of the few reasons why US, as a “benevolent hegemon”, is in such a quandary regarding her south-west Asia policy. Keeping in mind all her allies and protectorates interests, with all these conflicting directions, and looking forward for her own gains seems like squaring the circle to me.

  27. Ataune says:


    I think you didn’t pay attention to my reply. I said:

    “If the US is ready to accept the facts in the grounds, i.e. existence and credible power of the system of governance in Iran as the representative of the Iranian State, then there shouldn’t be any problem for the opening of the embassy.”

    UK is in no way what she was 60 years ago.

  28. James Canning says:

    I recommend Gideon Rachman’s column in the Financial Times today, regarding situation in Syria and Iraq.

  29. Karl.. says:


    And how do we now we “if US is ready to accept the facts on the ground” if not when all the sanctions have been lifted?

  30. James Canning says:


    John Kerry should try to reopen US embassy in Tehran. Israel lobby would go berserk.

  31. James Canning says:


    Once again you make the incorrect statement that for the P5+1 to seek to ensure Iran not be able to build nukes quickly, is tantamount to demanding “regime change”.

  32. Ataune says:

    @karl – the signs will be visible for all to see !!

  33. James Canning says:


    Kissinger sometimes said foolish things. Or posed questions that in fact were not questions. Iran is a country, full stop. Henry K would not argue otherwise. (He used to be my neighbor in Georgetown.)

  34. James Canning says:

    Financial Times leader today urges US cooperation with Iran. Re: terrorist insurgents.

  35. nico says:

    James Canning says:

    June 17, 2014 at 1:51 pm

    “Financial Times leader today urges US cooperation with Iran. Re: terrorist insurgents.”

    the FT has been cheerleading the USG past failures and macro policicies for decades and now the FT editorialists provide advices.
    Why the FT does not simply throw tomatoes to USG leadership and other so called intellectual ?
    Well that is simple. The FT is as much a corrupt and failed newspaper as the other US constituencies.

  36. James Canning says:


    The FT is the highest-regarded English-language international newspaper in the world.
    What is “corrupt” about it?

  37. nico says:

    James Canning says:

    “The FT is the highest-regarded English-language international newspaper in the world.
    What is “corrupt” about it?”

    Le Monde is the highest regarded french news paper.
    However it turned as a sold out pro Nato, pro clash of civilization, neocons style news paper more than a decade ago.

    Leading news paper like the NYT and others are truly a disgrace to the spirit of democracy and freedom.
    Just like the USG.
    Just as intellectually corrupt and morally failed.

  38. nico says:

    It seems the struggle is becoming ugly.

    “This Is Not Going As Planned: Iraq Prime Minister Defies US, Accuses Saudi Arabia Of “Genocide””

  39. Fiorangela says:

    William Burns was the game-changer.

    “On Monday, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State William J. Burns reportedly discussed the jihadist takeover of Iraq’s Sunni heartland with his Iranian counterparts on the sidelines of nuclear talks in Vienna.”

    June 15, 2014 from Vienna The Obama administration is sending both its second- and third-ranking diplomats to international negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program this week, in a sign of the mounting urgency of the talks.

    “The State Department announced that Deputy Secretary of State William J. Burns will join Undersecretary of State Wendy R. Sherman, the chief negotiator, at the planned five-day meeting in Vienna with negotiators for Iran, France, Britain, Germany, Russia and China.”

    – – –

    more on the career of William Burns — (NOT to be confused, ever, with Nicholas Burns, who is among those under consideration to replace William Burns when he retires in October. Better Nick should stay at Harvard where the trouble he can cause might not even be noticed. )

    http colon slash slash wall writings dot me/2013/11/26/the-secret-mission-of-william-j-burns/

  40. Rehmat says:

    On Tuesday, British prime minister David Cameron, an Israeli poodle, announced that his government has decided to re-open its embassy in Tehran. He said the decision was made after realization that Iran under the presidency of Sheikh Hassan Rouhani can play a positive role in the region especially the conflict in Syria and Iraq.

    Talking to media representatives in Vienna on Tuesday, Iran’s deputy foreign minister Majid Takhte-Ravanchi said that exchanging ambassadors between the two countries was not on the agenda for now.

  41. Rehmat says:

    Both William J. Burns and Wendy R. Sherman are Zionist Jew and Israel Firsters.

    J.J. Goldberg at the Jewish Daily Forward (November 26, 2013) gave credit to Iranian-born Valerie Bowman Jarrett (with Jewish family roots), Barack Obama’s senior adviser and Israel-Firsters Jake Sullivan, adviser to vice-president Joe Biden and William Burns, deputy to John Kerry, for softening Iranian stand over its nuclear program with some help from Sultan Qaboos of Oman. The claim was rejected by Iran’s foreign minister Mohammed Javad Zarif.

  42. Empty says:

    “US Leading Iran into Iraqi Quagmire” By Finian Cunningham

    What reliable evidence does Cunningham have to support the notion that Iran follows whereto the US Inc. leads?

    That reminds me…once there was this fellow who was standing in a long line waiting to buy some bread. Impatient and tired of standing in line, he turned to the people in front of him and said, “down the road, a bread shop is giving away bread for free.” Upon hearing this, people (for whom thinking is too painful) began to leave their positions in the line and rushed to the direction of the supposed shop. After a while, when most people in front of him had left, the man began to wonder if there really was a shop giving away free bread since everyone was hurriedly going there. As he got to the front of the line, suddenly he, too, left the line and ran down the street to get some free bread before they were all gone.

  43. masoud says:

    Just finished watching HML’s CSPAN appearance. Boy, was she composed. I have no idea how she managed not crack up laughing at some of the calls she was taking. What’s more she was able to constructively engage and pull some useful meaning out of ever caller’s interaction. Must be something they teach in diplomat school.

    Job well done.

  44. Sineva says:

    Karl.. says:
    June 17, 2014 at 11:32 am
    I agree completely

  45. Karl.. says:

    This is of course what US want, to rid Iraq from Shia leadership.

  46. BiBiJon says:

    Empty says:
    June 17, 2014 at 11:50 pm

    To echo Thomas E. Ricks

    Iran’s view of Iraq has three parts:

    a) Security for Shiites
    b) Containment of ISIS
    c) Security for Kurds

    Only on (b) there is something to talk about with the US. After all, as per HML, US intimately knows 80,000 of them.

  47. Castellio says:

    What is new in this article, or at least I think so, is the comparison to the treatment of Egypt. Have the Leveretts previously made a comparison of US policy towards Iran as an attempted redux of the policy towards Egypt?

  48. Karl.. says:

    IRaq renew its wish for US to bomb Iraq. With friends like that, who need enemies?

  49. James Canning says:


    Al-Maliki’s shortcomings in dealing with Sunni leaders in Iraq is not a good thing for Iran. Or for the Syrian government, for that matter.

  50. James Canning says:


    What “moral failings” on the part of the Financial Times are you claiming to exist?

  51. Empty says:

    Karl says, “IRaq renew its wish for US to bomb Iraq.

    I wonder how much US charges Iraq per bombing flight. It’s such a nifty little set up. US sells billions of dollars in weapons to Saudi Arabia to supply the terrorist groups to create chaos. Then it sells billions of dollars in bombing services to Iraqis to hit those areas in which the terrorists groups have created chaos.

    It’s such a “haram” income and Americans must be so proud to be financing such a system.

  52. nico says:

    James Canning says:

    “What “moral failings” on the part of the Financial Times are you claiming to exist?”

    Simple enough.
    The FT ediorialists hould have hold accountable western polities for their failures. Call it idiocies if you like.
    That is the theoritic role of the press(titute) after all.
    But no they are all in the same elitist and oligarchic league.

  53. Castellio says:

    Fiorangela, some of what you have written regarding WW1 is restated by Chomsky in his interview with Hedges.

    It might interest you:

  54. kooshy says:

    After the events of last decade, events which were and are created by the USG in Iraq , Libya, Syria, Afghanistan etc. and now again supporting and sending hired paid terrorist , back and forth to these countries , is clear to the world that USG and various associated government agencies including its armed forces are clearly terrorist and terrorist spurting organizations and have to be taken to ICJ, including their past and present leaders.

  55. James Canning says:


    What did the Financial Times have to do with Obama’s decision to treble US troops in Afghanistan? Or his decision to join France and Britain in overthrowing Gaddafi? I opposed decistions.

  56. James Canning says:


    The Financial Times regards GW Bush’s invasion of Iraq as a colossal blunder. You apparently are not aware of this fact.

  57. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Another excellent Yousaf Butt article…

    What Is the Quality of Scientific Evidence Against Iran?

  58. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Obama Tells Congress He Doesn’t Need Permission for New Iraq War –

    No surprise there…Emperor Obama does not deign to ask permission from Congress for anything.

  59. Richard Steven Hack says:

    US Poised to Strike Iraq, But CIA Has No Idea Who They’re Aiming At –

    Typical CIA…

  60. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Two Iraqi divisions dissolved, Gen. Dempsey tells Senate panel –

    60,000 troops – trained by billions of US tax dollars for nearly ten years…


    “Two divisions, and part of two, and one national police organization did, in fact, throw down their arms, and in some cases collude with, in some cases simply desert, in northern Iraq…”

    End Quote

  61. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Exclusive: Iran digs in heels on nuclear centrifuges at Vienna talks – envoys


    Centrifuges are not the only sticking point in this week’s talks, which are expected to run until Friday, diplomats say. Others include the types of centrifuges Iran uses, the speed of the lifting of sanctions and the expected duration of curbs that would be imposed on Iran’s nuclear activities.

    Two other stumbling blocks are Iran’s planned Arak nuclear reactor – which Western officials suspect could be a source of plutonium, an alternative to HEU as bomb fuel – and Iranian clarification of intelligence indications that it researched how to design bombs in the past – something it also denies doing.

    Diplomatic sources have told Reuters that it is increasingly probable Iran will seek a prolongation of the talks deadline. But Western officials insisted the focus now remained on sealing the deal by late July, noting that any extension must be agreed by all sides and would likely be short. “If there is an extension it will be for a few weeks,” a diplomat from one of the six powers told Reuters. If a deal were really within reach, the sides should not need six more months, the maximum extension approved under a preliminary deal Iran struck with the six powers in Geneva last November.

    End Quotes

    At this point, I think it’s safe to say there will be no deal, even with an extension. It was probably safe to say that last fall when the six months deal was reached…

  62. Richard Steven Hack says:

    US military assets in and near Iraq–politics.html

    Obama’s got enough to start the war up again if he intends to…but not enough to end it… :-)

  63. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Insurgency in Iraq Widens Rivals’ Rift


    “Regarding the holy Shiite shrines in Karbala, Najaf, Kadhimiya and Samarra, we announce to the killers and terrorists that the big Iranian nation will not hesitate to protect holy shrines,” the president vowed in the speech to a crowd in Lorestan Province in western Iran. “These terrorist groups, and those that fund them, both in the region and in the international arena, are nothing, and hopefully they will be put in their own place.”

    Mr. Rouhani also said many Iranian volunteers were prepared to travel to Iraq to defend religious sites. He sought to cast them as the allies of patriotic Iraqis from all backgrounds who see the Sunni insurgents as a scourge — a theme he also emphasized in a posting on his Twitter account.

    “Iranian nation will protect Iraq’s holy shrines & they aren’t alone. Iraq’s Sunnis, Shias & Kurds all ready to defeat terrorism solidarity,” he wrote.

    Mr. Rouhani signaled over the weekend that Iran did not intend to send troops to Iraq. But Gen. Qassim Suleimani, the head of Iran’s paramilitary Quds Force of the Revolutionary Guards, recently traveled to Iraq to meet with Iraqi leaders, who have mobilized thousands of militia fighters, almost exclusively Shiites. The high-level contact suggested that General Suleimani was helping oversee their training and strategy.

    End Quotes

  64. yk says:


    Careful with the way you employ words, the Iranian administration as never perceived this as a “sunni scourge” and neither does enlightened Muslims from other sects. We know who the real enemy is and the takfiris – who neither belong to the Sunnis nor the Shias – are just a tool employed by this enemy to taint true Islam and as a weapon of divide and conquer among Muslims.

    I want to assume you mean well, but using a sectarian designation would misrepresent your intent. Iranian officials are been extra careful to avoid sectarian explanation and outlook for these genocidal conspiracy at a very high cost so as to maintain the unity of the Muslim world and this is paying off in the form of increase in Iran’s soft power among the Muslim sects and even among the minorities in the middle east.

    Just like in Syria, so many Iraqi Sunnis are now joining the fight against the takfiris in Iraq even though they are aware that the effort is being lead by Shiites Iran.

  65. yk says:


    And as for the New York Times article that you cited take it or live it MSM medias have become a propaganda mouth piece of there various governments, what some people on this forum justly referred to as “presstitude”. They are deliberately spreading disinformation in furtherance of the hegemonic ambition of the West to be precise the US.

    For your points of view to be credible, you need to cite independent sources which are more reliable.

  66. BiBiJon says:

    RSH: “At this point, I think it’s safe to say there will be no deal, even with an extension. It was probably safe to say that last fall when the six months deal was reached…”

    No. Last fall, given the context, both sides must have assured one another that there was seriousness about wanting a deal. While it is possible both sides simply wanted to stage a theater for the exclusive purpose of holding back hawks from staring a war, the price both sides paid in condemnation of interim deal by their respective peanut galleries, tells me that possibility is small.

    Ultimately, there are no sticking points. The most important element of a deal is fulsome transparency on Iran’s part, and lifting of sanctions on US’ part. The former has been on offer for a long time already. And on the latter, news reports indicate Iran is willing to accept a gradual/incremental lifting of sanctions.

    Other issues, e.g. “breakout time” much vaunted by MSM is in fact nonsense easily excluded from the final deal, and easily explainable, as in:

  67. Fiorangela says:

    Castellio says:
    June 18, 2014 at 4:07 pm

    Castellio, Long time no see.

    It’s good to hear from you, and thank you for links to Chris Hedges conversation with Noam Chomsky.

    Hedges might be cutting too close to the bone: he’s been accused of plagiarism, one of the favorite tactics of Lawfare practitioners.

  68. nico says:

    It seems that summer 2014 will be a turninc point.
    While the nuclear deal is being discussed.
    Tension in Ukraine and Irak is at the highest.

    Will be intresting to see how the US will soft it out.
    Surely all those events or related somehow.

    And how will Europe or China react ?

    I mean there is no way Europe could get the much needed gas without Russia.
    And the worsening situation in Irak could unbalance oil world supply.

    Kudos for the US for alienating every and each country on earth.
    What are the US expecting the outcome to be ?

    Will the western united front break at some point while western economic situation is similar or worse than just before the 2008 crisis ?

    Geopolitical desintegration and the end of the globalization as we know it today ?

  69. nico says:

    James Canning,

    How the US will sort it out ?
    Any advice from the FT ?


  70. kooshy says:

    Dialogue 06/18/2014
    Iraq crisis continues

    Ali Akbar Velayati, Sr. Int’l Affairs Advisor to Iran’s Supreme Leader

  71. Sineva says:

    Fiorangela says:
    June 19, 2014 at 10:03 am
    I had to laugh at the so called “lawfare project”,it doesnt really matter what catchy neologisms they may come up with,you can still smell the stench of zionism from a mile away

  72. BiBiJon says:

    kooshy says:
    June 19, 2014 at 10:44 am

    Mr. Velayati’s last remark in that interview regarding Iran-China relations:

    “We are very optimistic. And, according to our assessment, our Chinese friends are also optimistic about the future relations between Iran and China. Both sides have agreed upon that these relations could be strategic, and if it is strategic it means that we can rely on it and this is to the benefit of both sides. Both important countries in Asia which have common concerns about extremism, about the domination of the US around us.”

  73. James Canning says:


    The FT thinks American troops should not intervene in Iraq. Laughable, in your view?

  74. James Canning says:

    RS Hack,

    The UK and the US did not attack France, on June 6, 1944. Curious that some commentators say the US would be “attacking Iraq” if it does anything to block the Isis forces from taking control of oil fields.

  75. nico says:

    James Canning says:

    “The FT thinks American troops should not intervene in Iraq. Laughable, in your view?”

    Well sure.
    The FT is intellectually corrupt and filled up with coward liars and sold out.

    A single obvious statement pointing at the US unconsistent policies in the region could be enough.
    But they do not as they are corrupt.

    As an example the FT could point at the takfiris financing by the US allies and thus at the US indirect support to takfiris.
    As an example tte FT could point at the weapons sent directly by the US and allies to takfiris in Syria.

    Maybe the FT could point at the direct link between the situation in Syria, and the US hand in such situation, and the situation in Irak.

    Maybe the FT could point at the US logical political unconsistencies.

    Maybe, maybe, maybe….

    But they do not hold the USG accountable. As such they are fully complicit and supporting the US macro policies.

    No surprise the FT in intellectually corrupt and morally failed.
    They are a full bunch of oligarchists.

  76. A-B says:

    Listen to Obomba’s ongoing press conference and weep … or laugh. The audacity of the guy!!!

  77. Castellio says:

    YK – I agree with your clear comment to RSH, and concur that the misuse of terms around the Sunni – Shia “divide” is not to the advantage of any relatively sane or progressive forces within the Middle East.

    Would that you clarify that point, from time to time, with FYI and several of the other regulars on the Board, who seem to relish and promote sectarian war.

  78. nico says:


    You might like that (or not).

    Hereafter a small exerpt. The full article is worth it.

    1. 95% of economics is common sense
    You don’t need a degree to understand it

    2. Economics is not a science
    Despite what the experts want you to believe, there is more than one way of ‘doing’ economics

    3. Economics is politics
    Economic arguments are often justification for what politicians want to do anyway
    Economics is a political argument. It is not – and can never be – a science.
    [By leaving macro economics to the so called experts you just forfeit your own freedom of thinking uselessly and your democratic right, your freewill, critical thinking and right to have your own opinion]

    4. Never trust an economist
    It is one thing not to foresee the financial crisis; it’s another not to have changed anything since
    The financial crisis has been a brutal reminder that we cannot leave our economy to professional economists and other ‘technocrats’. We should all get involved in its management – as active economic citizens.

    5. We have to reclaim economics for the people
    It’s too important to be left to the experts alone

  79. Karl.. says:

    Could anyone give a link to what Maliki have done that is so horrific?
    According to MSM it is not the terrorists fault, it is somehow Maliki’s fault.

  80. nico says:


    See the US foreign policies flowchart it explains it all !

  81. James Canning says:


    The FT has printed numerous stories regarding how the US and other countries have aided terrorists to get on with their terrorist activities.

    You ave obvious difficulty is comprehending that governments often pursue policies that to some degree conflict with other policies of the same government.

  82. James Canning says:


    Meant to say “you have obvious diffulty in comprehending . . . “

  83. James Canning says:


    You might benefit simply by studying the British activities in the Middle East during the First World War.

    Officials operating out of Delhi (Indian Empire) often had different policy objectives than British officials operating out of Cairo.

    Cairo sometimes did not agree with London. Etc etc etc.

  84. nico says:

    James Canning,

    Well that is the news paper responsibility to point at such unconsistencies and long run trend.
    Some micro management like troops on the ground in Irak is meaningless.
    As a whole the US led western macro policies are a HUGE failure for few decades.
    Where is the FT ? Oh noooo troooops one the ground pleeease ….

  85. yk says:


    Thanks for your candid observation. Am just trying to clarify what damage such careless use of words could create in the mind of a lay man.

    To start with let us take a look at Assad Syria, the armed forces is made up of majority Sunnis, just imagine for a second that this people decided to join the opposition does any objective analyst think Assad could last a week even with all the foreign support he is getting in place?

    Am not saying that some Sunnis are not aggrieved and I strongly believe that these grievances should be address, but the fact is being a Sunni doesn’t automatically translate to being Shia hater or vice versa. We have to address the root cause of this problem not in an agenda driven manner.

    There are some questions begging for answers:

    What was the relationship between the Sunnis and Shias before 9/11?

    Why was Iraq invaded and for what purpose?

    What and who are those responsible for the sectarian divide
    in Iraq?

    Who will benefit from such sectarian interpretation of events?

    Why is sectarian discuss on the on the rise among Islamic nations post 9/11?

    I repeat enlightened Muslims knows that differences of view or opinion is a natural order, one that is not peculiar to the Muslim community. We know who the real enemy is and no amount of propaganda can change this.

    They (Western nations) are trying to divide the Islamic community, but a problem that doesn’t kill you will only make you stronger.

  86. A-B says:


    Listen to Obama’s press conference: He reminds that Iraq declined the US immunity [to commit whatever crimes they want to do in Iraq] that would turn Iraq to a complete client state (cf. the so-called Capitulation Treaty the US imposed and enforced on Iran). The Anglo-American then in classic Mafia style unleashed their thugs for Iraq to ‘stop being such a sectarian’. Here ‘sectarian’ is used as slur if you look at your national security interest. Conversely, Maleki would not be ‘sectarian’ if he yields to the true sectarian-tribalists of the Peninsula; the ‘shady sunnies’ the Anglo-Americans call ‘Sunnis’.

    It is absolutely jaw-dropping that the same savages the West called – and still calls?!!- rebels and freedom fighters in Syria are now called ‘terrorists’ in Iraq!! Then the West and the US overtly admit that they support – according to themselves ‘ISLAMIC’ – terrorists. Now they refer to a fear of a ‘blow back’, which is a complete BS as usual. The US support and creation of the Talebees in Afghanistan NEVER ‘blew back’ in the face of the West and the US; it was extremely fortunate for the US and the NATO. Of course it was Iran’s diplomacy that helped driving out the defeated Western terrorists out of Homs, in Syria. Only THEN the [repulsive] Brits started to talk of the danger of these savages returning back to Europe. Naturally, these controlled tools will never attack their masters. Instead the West unleashed them in Iraq, letting them do as much harm as possible and eventually letting them be slaughtered in Iraq and Syria and meanwhile try to score a point with Iran. This is how Mafia works; this is how evil the West is.


  87. Castellio says:

    YK – yes, thanks for your further comments, and the link, which site is new to me.

  88. James Canning says:


    Obama is well aware that many of the insurgents in Syria are Islamic terrorists.

  89. James Canning says:


    You obviously are completely ignorant of the policy recommendations made by the FT in recent years, regarding what course or courses to pursue in the Middle East.

  90. Jay says:

    nico says:
    June 19, 2014 at 2:02 pm

    Mostly agree on 1, 4, and 5. Disagree on 2, and 3. Strongly encourage 5!!

  91. Rd. says:

    James Canning says:

    “Obama is well aware that many of the insurgents in Syria are Islamic terrorists.”

    if obama is as ignorant/un-informed as you are, he is in deep trouble..

    the insurgents in Syria are ‘axis power’ terrorist. Your racism shows its color. Full stop.

  92. A-B says:

    James Canning says:
    June 19, 2014 at 4:32 pm


  93. A-B says:

    Latest report from WC in Brazil:
    Uruguay vs. England: 2-1

  94. nico says:

    Jay says:

    “Mostly agree on 1, 4, and 5. Disagree on 2, and 3. Strongly encourage 5!!”

    2 is about economics not being a science. Agree that it is debatable. Maybe it can be labeled as a “soft” science.
    3 is about economics being politics. I tkink it is politics. As it plays with social relations and one’s everyday life.

  95. Khomeini says:

    kooshy says:
    June 19, 2014 at 10:44 am

    Ali Akbar really needs to talk more calmly. Man of his position needs to be more eloquent. At times he lost the question all together. He did the same thing during presidential election debates last year.

  96. nico says:

    James Canning says:

    “You obviously are completely ignorant of the policy recommendations made by the FT in recent years, regarding what course or courses to pursue in the Middle East.”

    Obviously I do not care a whit.
    There is no point for a news paper to make “recommandation”.
    What news paper need to do is to hold politician accountable for their failure, intellectual dishonesty (as much as yours) and moral bankruptcy.
    They do not. Quite the contrary they find excuse ane justification for proven failed and immoral policies.
    Just like you do.

  97. Jay says:

    nico says:
    June 19, 2014 at 5:17 pm

    Economics has impact on social and political issues, and social and political contexts shape economic realities. That is true.

    However, when one says that economics (E) is politics (P), it means that all matters involving E involve P and all matters that involve P involve E – which is not a true statement, from the perspective of logic.

  98. nico says:

    Jay says:
    June 19, 2014 at 6:02 pm

    Good post.

    All major matter involving E involves P and vice versa.
    However I am not all minor matter involving E involves P.
    But surely we could assume that it would be absurd to say that minor issues win over major ones.

  99. nico says:


    Jay says:
    June 19, 2014 at 6:02 pm

    Good post.

    Intutively, all major matter involving (E) involves (P) and vice versa.

    However I am not SURE all minor matters involving (E) involves (P). And I am sure you could find an exqmple to illustrate just that.
    But surely we could assume that it would be absurd to say that minor issues win over major ones.

    Thus to prove your point you would need to provide an example where major (E) is not affecting (P) or vice versa.
    The subject being quite complex, I think intuition and counter example are the best suited logical tools to prove a point.

  100. James Canning says:


    ONE EXAMPLE, please, of what in your judgment is “intellectual dishonesty” on my part. ONE EXAMPLE.

  101. James Canning says:


    You seem unaware I have condemned the vicious civil war in Syria numerous times.

  102. James Canning says:


    Are you suggesting you were not aware Obama knew many of the insurgents in Syria were Sunni fanatics?

  103. nico says:

    James Canning says:

    “ONE EXAMPLE, please, of what in your judgment is “intellectual dishonesty” on my part. ONE EXAMPLE.”

    That is simple.
    Your 20% delirium is an obvious intellectual dishonesty as you support the western rationale over the Iran Nuclear program while it has been proven time and again (and quite recently by Gareth Porter articles if I am not mistaken) that the nuclear issue is an artificially built up political case.

  104. Empty says:


    RE: “Now they refer to a fear of a ‘blow back’…”

    They speak of ‘blow back’ because they have more plans for their own respective populations: to further restrict whatever civil liberties these people believe(ed) they have(/had) and tighten the noose around their own people.

  105. Empty says:

    …their own people’s neck.

  106. Jay says:

    nico says:
    June 19, 2014 at 7:03 pm

    Historically speaking, the separation of politics and economics is a recent event. In terms of interaction, they are “joined at the hip”. Therefore, for the practice of life and society, they are often intertwined.

    From a theoretical viewpoint, models proposed by Von Neumann or John Nash for example, exist independent of politics – the political realm is no place for Nash equilibrium! Of course, as I conceded earlier, these are mere abstractions living in the world of theory. If put in practice, they will intersect politics!

  107. yk says:

    Now the objectives of the US in creating this chaos is becoming obvious: a regime change in Iraq through arm twisting politics- which seems to be the only tool in America’s foreign policy discuss.

    Another objective is to wound Iran and by extension the Resistance Axis.

    When this policy failed to bring down Assad in Syria, Washington decided to turn to Iraq – a nation that is still suffering from the ripple effect of the genocidal occupation by the US and a soft underbelly of Iran – thinking Iran would intervene directly by sending in its forces, so it would be trapped in a quagmire. When Iran refused to take the bait they switched to plan B which is the removal of Maliki to be replace with their own puppet.

    Now they are openly demanding that a leader of a sovereign nation should step down as a precondition for assistance against the terror they created, a mafia theory. What they however failed to put into perspective is the implication of their actions on the majority Shia population who had taken power in Iraq (democratically) and have seen what happened next door in Syria, some of them even partake in holding the terrorists at bay in Syria, and whose pride in self defense have been arosed following the successes of Hezbollah in Lebanon and NDF in Syria.

    Iran would not take this laying down, but I believe much of the fighting would be done by the Iraqis and Iran would make all the necessary logistical support available to build another NDF in Iraq.

    Another implication of this policy – if we can call it a policy – is that such barbaric actions and undue pressure could finally alienate the US in Iraq forcing Maliki to permanently cede Iraq into the Resistance Axis block. In fact just like in Russia, it could destroy any semblance of democratic opposition in Iraq as those opposition could be portrayed as traitors by Maliki as some of the Shia politicians opposed to Maliki are now very careful of there public utterances.

    Lastly, I believe this could also be another attempt to force Iran to accept a compromise in the ongoing nuclear negotiations. If Maliki step down and America’s puppet emerge, terrorists would be running loose in Iran’s next door posing a clear and present danger to Iran and most of the economic cooperation between Iran and Iraq could be shut down. This would create a great pressure on Iran. That is IF this harebrained plan succeeded.

    But we all know what Iran does under pressure – R & D growth, few hundred centrifuges to tens of thousands centrifuges, development of missiles and space technology, development of sophisticated drone technology, protection of its allies and increase in its soft power etc.

  108. Khomeini says:

    yk says:
    June 20, 2014 at 3:55 am

    “Iran would make all the necessary logistical support available to build another NDF in Iraq.”

    This is what Iran should have done over last 10 years. If Iraqi NDF was created earlier Iraq would not be in this position now. NDF is a success in Syria.

    Current crisis in Iraq is a blessing in disguise for Iran. With creation of Iraqi NDF (Iraqi basij) the country will be more secure in long term. It will take some time to do this, patience is required.

  109. yk says:

    Khomeini, 10 years ago

    -Iraq was under US occupation and US is the sole superpower in the world
    -Iran doesn’t have the type of military capabilities and soft power it posses now
    -The circumstances in Iraq cannot accommodate such step
    -Building an NDF would boost US position in Iraq as it can easily refer to them as terrorists group and claim Iran harboured terrorists
    -Interfering in Iraq openly could bring war on Iran itself
    -Iran was seen as a pariah state by much of the international community and such act would be perceived as invasion for land grab to be repelled just like Saddam’s invasion of Iran
    -Such policy would be viewed as sectrian and undermine Iran allies in Iraq
    -Iran leadership just like now was NOT irrational and suicidal.

    I meant no insult but asking Iran to build NDF in Iraq 10 years ago is wishful thinking. Of course it also amount to daydream to claim Iran was not involved in the low intensity warfare that forced US troops out of Iraq but different epoch requires different approach, Iran allies in Iraq were able to denied Iran’s involvement in the resistance to US occupation because it was a covert form of action and Iran made sure there were no solid evidence to prove its involvement.

    If you look at Hezbollah and Hamas it wasn’t until I think 2010 or 2012 that Ayatollah Khamenei claimed openly in a Friday prayer sermon that Iran militarily back Hezbollah and Hamas which lead to the defeat of Israel 2006 & 2008. Before such claim is normally restricted to moral and political support. Now compare Iran military and developmental position of 2010 to that of 2004 maybe you will get my gist.

  110. Bussed-in Basiji says:

    IHS Reveals New Potential Nuclear Enrichment Site in India

    Karl Dewey, Proliferation Editor at IHS Jane’s Intelligence Review, added: “The enrichment plant was originally built to provide uranium for submarine reactors. But there is now significant excess capacity for other purposes, most likely nuclear weapons.”

    Robert Kelley, consultant to IHS Jane’s Intelligence Review, added: “The US continues to treat India as a bona fide nuclear weapons state despite India’s failure to ratify the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). Mysore’s original centrifuge plant was constructed in 1992, although in 2010 site clearance for a new, even larger, suspected centrifuge hall began. It is this new facility that could soon be operational. India is generally vocal in publicising its defence industry successes, but has revealed little about operations at Mysore, possibly to reduce attention to its nuclear trade agreements with the US.”

  111. Rd. says:

    James Canning says:

    “Are you suggesting you were not aware Obama knew many of the insurgents in Syria were Sunni fanatics?”

    I think someone in your HQ is fooling you and pulling your legs while providing you with false propaganda!!!! Best checkin with your chief!! the terrorists are your own making..

    “More Brits signing up to fight with jihadist militants in Iraq and Syria than for the UK Army Reserve”

  112. Richard Steven Hack says:

    yk: “Careful with the way you employ words, the Iranian administration as never perceived this as a “sunni scourge”…”

    First of all, they are not my words, they are quotes from the NYT article.

    Secondly, the article itself specifically refers to “Sunni INSURGENTS” as the scourge, not Sunnis themselves as the rest of the quotes make clear.

    Learn to read English before criticizing me, please – or maybe, just don’t.

  113. Richard Steven Hack says:

    BiBiJon: “No. Last fall, given the context, both sides must have assured one another that there was seriousness about wanting a deal.”

    You just keep telling yourself that. You’ve got to July 20th – or possibly a few weeks or months beyond – to prove it. Good luck with that.

  114. Empty says:


    RE: “More Brits signing up to fight with jihadist militants in Iraq and Syria than for the UK Army Reserve”

    1. Terrorists in Iraq and Syria vs. UK Army, a distinction without a difference
    2. Poor souls still haven’t caught on that this whole thing was also meant to first do a massive purge of more radical Muslims from Europe and then take care of the more moderate ones

  115. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Karl: “Could anyone give a link to what Maliki have done that is so horrific?
    According to MSM it is not the terrorists fault, it is somehow Maliki’s fault.”

    While the overall situation is not Maliki’s fault per se – clearly it’s the result of the 2003 invasion – it is also clear that Maliki and his police and military have been persecuting the Sunni part of Iraq pretty much ever since he was first elected. It’s not like that hasn’t been covered umpteen times in articles on Iraq. There has been no “reconciliation” which is why the Sunni tribes are pissed off and are using ISIS as an excuse to restart the sectarian war.

    But if you will recall, the Iraqi military under Maliki was initially composed mostly of SHIA. That was one of the Sunni complaints. So what we see here is that even the SHIA Iraqi military crumbled and fled because NO ONE – EVEN the Shia – want to die for Maliki. That pretty much says it all right there. The Shia will die to protect their shrines – but not to protect the Iraqi government. They might also be willing to protect the city of Baghdad, which is mostly Shia now, and of course the Shia south. But they aren’t going to be willing to protect Maliki.

    Everyone recognizes that Maliki has been a lame President. The problem now is if Obama tries to replace him with someone else, it’s likely to be an even worse choice.

    Proof: According to an article I just saw, the US is talking to CHALABI – the Iranian double agent! LOL

  116. Khomeini says:

    yk says:
    June 20, 2014 at 5:38 am

    Well, as far as I can remember right after 2003 invasion Mehdi-Army of Muktadhar al-sadar was actively involved in Iraq (south) security. But Malaki under US pressure got it ended. Iran could have turned mehdi-army into Iraqi NDF – I don’t know why this was not considered.

  117. Richard Steven Hack says:

    As usual, Pepe hits it on the head…

    Pepe Escobar on Burn, Men in Black, burn


    We interrupt this desert catwalk to announce they will NOT invade Baghdad. On the other hand, they are busy accelerating the balkanization – and eventual partition – of both Syria and Iraq. They are NOT a CIA brainchild (how come Langley never thought about it?); they are in fact the bastard children of (disgraced) Bandar Bush’s credit card largesse.

    The fact that ISIS is NOT directly in Langley’s payroll does not imply their strategic agenda essentially differs from that of the Empire of Chaos. The Obama administration may be sending a few marines to protect the swimming pools of the largest, Vatican-sized embassy on Planet Earth, plus a few “military advisers” to “retrain” the dissolving Iraqi Army. But that’s a drop of Coke Zero in the Western Iraqi desert. There’s no evidence Obama is about to authorize “kinetic support” against ISIS, even though Baghdad has already green-lighted it.

    Even if Obama went ballistic (“targeted military action”), and/or manufactured a new kill list to be itemized by his drones, that would amount to no more than a little diversion. What matters is that the confluent ISIS/Beltway agenda remains the same; get rid of Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki (not by accident the new meme in US corporate media); curb Iran’s political/economic influence over Iraq; fundamentally erase Sykes-Picot; and promote the “birth pangs” (remember Condi?) of vast wastelands bypassing centralized power and run by hardcore tribal Sunnis.

    Neo-con propaganda denouncing the US government for being in bed with Tehran against ISIS is, once again, disinformation.

    Commander of Iran’s Basij, General Mohammad Reza Naqudi, was very close to the mark when he said, “Takfiri and Salafi groups in different regional states, especially in Syria and Iraq, are supported by the US”, and that “the US is manipulating the Takfiri terrorists to tarnish the image of Islam and Muslims.” The same applies to Speaker of the Majlis Ali Larijani; “It is obvious that the Americans and the countries around it have made such moves … Terrorism has grown into an instrument for the big powers to advance their goals.”

    What this all implies is that Tehran has identified the ISIS catwalk parade for what it is; a trap. Moreover, they are also convinced Washington won’t break with its vassals at the House of Saud. Translation: Washington remains committed to old school GWOT. What Tehran is already, practically, supporting – also with “advisers” on the ground – is a myriad of Shi’ite militias who are being deployed to secure Baghdad and especially the Shi’ite holy cities, Najaf and Karbala.

    US Return of the Living Neo-Con Dead, meanwhile, insist on regurgitating their favorite theme; Maliki Maliki Maliki. Nothing of what’s goin’ on in Iraq has anything to do with Shock and Awe, the invasion, occupation and destruction of most of the country, Abu Ghraib, or the vicious, totally Washington-instigated sectarian war (Divide and Rule, all over again). It’s all Maliki’s fault. So he must be booted out. When everything fails – to the tune of trillions of dollars – the neo-con playbook always resets to default; regime change.

    It’s all extremely fishy about ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, aka Abu Dua, born in Samarra in 1971, a Saddam “remnant” but – crucially – a former prisoner of the US government in Camp Bocca from 2005 to 2009, as well as a former leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq. It’s no secret in the Levant that ISIS Men in Black were trained in 2012 by US instructors at a secret base in Safawi, in the northern desert of that fiction disguised as a country, Jordan, so they would later fight as Western-approved “rebels” in Syria.

    It was al-Baghdadi who sent a batch of Men in Black to set up Jabhat al-Nusra (“good terrorists”, remember?) in Syria. He may have split from Jabhat in late 2013, but still remains in charge of a vast desert wasteland from northern Syria to Western Iraq. He’s the new Osama bin Laden (the gift that keeps on giving, again), the all but certain Emir of an Islamically correct desert Caliphate in the heart of the Levant.

    Forget about Osama in the Hindu Kush; this is so much sexier.

    A hardcore Sunnistan between Iraq’s Kurdish north and the Shi’te south, swimming in oil, extending all the way to Aleppo, Rakka and Deir ez-Zor in Syria, between the two rivers – the Tiger and the Euphrates – with Mosul as capital, back to its ancestral role of pivot between the twin rivers and the Mediterranean. Sykes-Picot, eat your heart out.

    Obviously, al-Baghdadi could not have pulled that awesome feat off all by himself. Enter his top Saddam “remnant” sidekick, Ba’ath party theorist extraordinaire Izzaat Ibrahim al-Douri, who happens to be from strategic Mosul. And most of all, enter the General Military Council for Iraqi Revolutionaries – an awesomely “secret” organization which has had the guile to dribble, like an infernal composite of Lionel Messi and Luiz Suarez, the whole Western intel apparatus, Orwellian-Panopticon NSA included.

    Well, not really, because this ISIS-Ba’athist coalition of the willing was brokered by none other than Bandar Bush – while he was still in action, with crucial, lateral input from Turkey’s Prime Minister Erdogan. No way to trace it all back to the Beltway.

    Grand Ayatollah Sistani, also for all practical purposes, launched a Shi’ite jihad against ISIS. For his part, the leader of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, Sayyid Ammar al-Hakim, all but resurrected their formidable paramilitary, the Badr Corps – very close to the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps. These are real badasses, against which ISIS does not stand a chance. And Muqtada al-Sadr is launching “Peace Brigades” to protect the Shi’te holy cities and also Christian churches. Civil war rules.

    End Quotes

  118. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Obama Won’t Rule Out Airstrikes in Syria
    Administration Says Intervention Not Restricted to Iraq

    Still trying to get that Syria war started…

  119. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Iraqi PM’s Rivals Aim to Be US-Approved Successor
    Ahmed Chalabi Positioning Himself as ‘Moderate’ Candidate

    We got a SIIC leader, a Badr Brigade commander and Chalabi as options…all three operating for Iran.

    Good luck with that satisfying the Sunni tribes…

  120. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Iraq Militants Seize Old Chemical Weapons Facility

    And here we have the usual propaganda piece about “chemical weapons” – right on cue…

  121. Khomeini says:

    Bussed-in Basiji says:
    June 20, 2014 at 9:55 am

    Thank you for posting India nuclear enrichment link.

    This is what I think Iran should do – enrich uranium to 60% and power its nuclear submarines. But I am not sure Iran’s current negotiating team with p5+1 is willing to keep the right to enrich to 60% for submarines.

  122. Richard Steven Hack says:

    We’re Going Back to Iraq
    – Unless Americans rise up and say “No!”


    A political settlement of Iraq’s ongoing civil war has been out of reach since the very beginning of US involvement, and there’s no reason to believe the various factions will come together as a result of this latest crisis. That’s because it isn’t in their interests to do so: indeed, the advance of ISIS gives all three factions – the Shia, the Sunnis, and the Kurds – what they’ve always wanted: sectarian supremacy within their respective territories.

    Which brings us to the second problem with blaming Maliki: Iraq was never a real country to begin with.

    The seeds of the Sunni rebellion were planted, ironically, by the very tactics we used to secure our Pyrrhic “victory” in the first place: while John McCain, Dick Cheney, and their neocon amen corner are claiming that this administration “snatched defeat from the jaws of victory,” that alleged victory was claimed on the basis of the “success” of the so-called Arab Awakening – an effort by the US to recruit Sunni tribes in the north disgruntled by Al Qaeda’s harsh tactics. These are the very forces now marching on Baghdad under the black banners of ISIS – a fact the Obamaites (and the neocons) blame on Maliki. Yet it was the Americans who gave this group unity – and weaponry – during the “surge,” cohering them into an effective fighting force that is now being turned on Baghdad.

    The “surge” was the beginning of a general reorientation of American policy in the region, the turn toward the Sunnis – in preparation for the final advance on the real target, which has always been Iran. Blaming Maliki is only a prelude to blaming the real object of Washington’s ire – Tehran.

    To top it off, in their campaign to oust Maliki the Americans are talking to none other than Ahmed Chalabi – yes, the neocons’ favorite Iraqi politician whose made up “intelligence” on Saddam’s alleged “weapons of mass destruction” was channeled onto the front page of the New York Times by disgraced former journalist Judith Miller. It doesn’t matter to US policymakers that Chalabi was credibly accused by the Pentagon of selling US secrets to Iran – by telling them we had broken the Iranian interagency code. All is forgiven! Incredibly, he is in the running to replace Maliki, with full US backing of course. While this may give the Chalabi Fan Club over at Neocon Central an enormous amount of satisfaction, the rest of us can only look on in sheer disbelief.

    Iraq War III is all about domestic politics: Obama is worried his “legacy” will be tarnished, and his party is concerned about having the “Who lost Iraq?” albatross hung around their necks in 2016.

    End Quotes

  123. Richard Steven Hack says:

    From Patrick Cockburn…

    Iraq Crisis: US Precision Attacks Will Hurt the Jihadists But They Won’t Defeat Them


    The Isis offensive has turned into a Sunni uprising with many trucks full of young men from Sunni villages waving their rifles and taking little care to protect themselves. Killing many of these will only further anger the Sunni community. The US will also not want to appear as the saviour of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki who is detested in Sunni districts.

    End Quote

  124. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Attack on Iraq Would Violate US Law, Experts Warn


    Francis Boyle, professor at the University of Illinois College of Law, warns, “This could escalate in any number of ways — exactly what the War Powers Resolution was supposed to stop. It’s not legitimate for the president — or members of Congress — to make arrangements that violate the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution.”

    He added, “Obama just stated that the 300 U.S. troops would be doing training, but CNN reports his spokesperson Jay Carney stated they would also ‘provide airfield management security and logistic support.’ Does this mean that they will become the required forward air controllers for the targeted and precise military action that Obama says he is preparing? If the U.S. is going to target ISIS, will it be limited to Iraq or will it eventually go into Syria?”

    End Quote

    All good questions…

  125. Khomeini says:

    Richard Steven Hack says:
    June 20, 2014 at 11:55 am

    Thank you for the link.

    I will say Adel Abdul Mahdi of SIIC is a very intelligent man. He will not be a bad option for current Iraq. Thanks again for the link.

  126. Richard Steven Hack says:

    France Discusses Military Options for Iraq, Syria


    “The war that (Syrian President Bashar Assad) is pursuing against his own people promotes the creation of a zone between Syria and Iraq that is open to terrorists,” Hollande said in the statement.

    He urged the international community to boost support for Syrian opposition forces fighting jihadist groups, and said France is ready to help. He didn’t elaborate.

    End Quote

    Still trying to get that Syria war started…blame it all on Assad…

  127. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Khomeini: “I will say Adel Abdul Mahdi of SIIC is a very intelligent man. He will not be a bad option for current Iraq.”

    He’ll need to be open to reconciliation with the Sunni tribes and the Baathists, otherwise nothing will change. In general, I doubt any given individual can change the dynamic in Iraq at this point. It’s too broken.

  128. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Khomeini: “This is what I think Iran should do – enrich uranium to 60% and power its nuclear submarines.”

    Problem with that is that nuclear subs are useless as a defense against Israel (let alone the US) without sub-launched cruise missiles, preferably with nuclear warheads, as Israel is speculated to have installed on their two or three German-made subs. A few Iranian subs with conventional warheads on a few cruise missiles wouldn’t be much of a threat to Israel.

    A nuclear sub might be useful against the US Navy IF it’s designed to be quiet enough to evade US detection technology – which is really hard to do in the Persian Gulf due to the shallow waters. It would probably be decades before Iran could design a sub that could compete with US Navy attack subs.

    But primarily there’s no way the US and the EU would agree to allowing 60% enrichment.

    All the arguments for Iran having nuclear weapons boil down to the single claim that Iran needs nukes as a deterrent.

    The counter argument is clear:

    1) Iran is ALREADY being threatened with war for NOT having a nuke program.
    2) Therefore Iran will never be able to develop a credible nuclear force without being attacked before it could do so.
    3) It would be impossible for Iran to develop a credible nuclear force during a conflict with the US as a result of 2).
    4) If Iran has enough military strength today to serve as a deterrent against attack, as some here have suggested (I don’t), then Iran doesn’t NEED nukes as a deterrent.

    The argument is simply “penis measuring”: the US has nukes, Israel has nukes, so Iran has to have nukes. It’s ridiculous.

    Fortunately the Iranian leadership is far more intelligent and has determined that Iran 1) has no need of nukes, and 2) couldn’t credibly or successfully use them if they had them. And they’ve repeatedly said so.

  129. kooshy says:

    Richard Steven Hack says:?
    June 20, 2014 at 12:09 pm
    “Attack on Iraq Would Violate US Law, Experts Warn”

    Hum, Really? Why didn’t I think of that.

    Good luck with that US law

  130. Khomeini says:

    Richard Steven Hack says:
    June 20, 2014 at 12:30 pm

    Iran does not need nuclear powered submarine to deal Israel. South Lebanon is far better strategic location to counter Israel. With the situation in Syria, the Golan height border between Syria and Israel is another opening for Iran to deal with Israel – when needed. Before 2011 Basher was quiet content to keep Syria-Israel border quiet but now that it survived with Iran’s help (along with Russia and China help) it is bound to allow Iran operate from Golan border – Lebanon’s Al-Akhbar newspaper published a article late last year on this: I have read it back than.

    Furthermore, Iran’s missiles have Israel within its firing range. Iran’s attack drone also can reach Israel. So the submarines are of no use to Iran to deal with Israel.

    For detection of US naval fleet in Persian Gulf Iran does not need submarine, it can do and has been doing so from its own land that stretches along the entire persian gulf coast – especially straight of hormos. Iran even has shallow water submarine that already operate in Persian gulf. No need for these submarine to have nuclear fuel to operate in persian gulf – its too close to Iran’s coat.

    Real benefit of nuclear powered submarine for Iran will be its ability for long distance reconnaissance mission in ocean – atlantic ocean perhaps. This is a capability Iran does not have right now. So, I hope Iran enriches uranium to 60% for its submarines.

  131. James Canning says:


    I take it you agree with me that Obama has been fully aware that many of the Muslim insurgents operating in Syria are terrorists who pose a danger to countries outside the Middle East.

  132. James Canning says:

    Financial Times leader today says in effect that the architects of the US-led disaster in Iraq in 2003 should be more humble.

  133. James Canning says:


    You apparently are claiming I was “intellectually dishonest” when I argued that Iran’s announcement of intent to treble production of 20% U helped wreck David Cameron’s wish to improve Britain’s relations with Iran and Syria.

    In fact, I stated the obvious truth.

  134. nico says:

    James Canning says:

    Liar. Dishonest and corrupt assertion of yours.
    Answer a simple question which I am sure you will not as you are intellectually and morally failed.

    Do you support Iran right to enrich at 20% or above when needed for civilian purpose whatever the western fabricated allegation.?

    Disgusting liar.
    The guy has nerve.

  135. Rd. says:

    Richard Steven Hack says:

    “And here we have the usual propaganda piece about “chemical weapons” – right on cue…”

    and on 2nd cue we have 75 cdc scientist exposed to anthrax? What is US chemical inc upto??
    are the US/UK that diseased to be sending batches of anthrax to their Wahhabi terrorists?

  136. James Canning says:


    Iran’s right to enrich to 20% WAS NOT THE ISSUE.

    The issue was whether Iran’s announcement of intent to TREBLE production of 20U helped to wreck David Cameron’s plan to improve Britain’s relations with Iran, and Syria for that matter.

    You seem to have difficulty grasping the distinction.

  137. James Canning says:


    Let me put it this way: Iran’s miscalculation hurt the programme Cameron had in mind. And that programme would have been a good thing for Iran.

  138. nico says:

    James Canning says:

    “Iran’s right to enrich to 20% WAS NOT THE ISSUE.”

    You did not answer my question as expected.
    You intellectual thug.

  139. Rd. says:

    James Canning says:

    “I take it you agree with me that Obama has been fully aware that many of the Muslim US/UK insurgents operating in Syria are terrorists who pose a danger to countries outside the Middle East.”

    oh you hit it on the head.. there you go man.. you just need to remove your head from where the sun don’t shine!!! and I don’t mean UK!!!! wasn’t this the plan all along??

    I know you guys are kinda sore since Iranian parliament didn’t ratify the 1919 agreement. Boy that head still on fire?

  140. James Canning says:


    You appear unaware I strongly opposed promotion of civil war in Syria. Correct?

  141. James Canning says:


    I have said many times I think Iran can enrich to 20 for purposes of fueling TRR. (I think it would have been better for Iran if Iran had not been forced to enrich to 20.)

    I take it you concede the Iranian announcement of intent to treble 20U production helped to wreck David Cameron’s programme.

  142. nico says:


    I believe the Iranian decision to “treble” production was a wise and appropriate answer to the westdisgusting offer of fuel swap.
    That is obvious and only an oligarchic stooge and intellectual thug like you could think otherwise.

  143. nico says:

    Which lead us back to my previous question.
    Do you support Iran right to enrich at 20% or above qnd civilian purpose ?
    And don’t you think the western position on this matter was a blunder and a provocation which in the first place led to escalation ?

    No need to answer the question… You intellectuql thug and liar (should be in the DNA)

  144. nico says:

    Ukraine and Iraq/Syria bit related at all ?
    See the following…

    Russia Reignites The Proxy War: Putin Offers “Complete Support” To Iraq Prime Minister Scorned By Obama


  145. Karl.. says:

    Anyone here still want a UK embassy in Iran?

    UK spy caught in Iran.

  146. kooshy says:

    Karl.. says:
    June 20, 2014 at 3:47 pm

    Is always better to keep the enemies closer to yourself

  147. BiBiJon says:

    Be reasonable, see it my way. Good luck with that.

    Richard Steven Hack says:
    June 20, 2014 at 11:34 am

    “You just keep telling yourself that. You’ve got to July 20th – or possibly a few weeks or months beyond – to prove it.”

    Not fair. I get one measly month, while any conflict that erupts, ever, proves your doggedly stuck to line: the elite crave war.


    Obama could not be clearer. He wants to ‘partner’ with Iran to solve the Iraq problem, and by extension the Syria problem, and by further extension the Saudi-US problem vis-a-vis unbridled Jihadis.

    He said: “Iran can play a constructive role if it is helping to send the same message to the Iraqi government that we’re sending, which is that Iraq only holds together if it’s inclusive and that — if the interests of Sunni, Shia and Kurd are all respected.”

    He is setting a very low bar, in effect urging the pope to be Catholic. Of course Iran has every interest in a non-sectarian outcome in both Syria and Iraq. She is secure in her relations with the Lebanese, Iraqi and Syrian Shi’a populations. Iran is being asked to partner in the arduous task of wooing the non-Shi’a.

    ANd, this comes with the backdrop of:

    China’s envoy to the talks, Wang Qun, said the drafting of a common framework text showed “progress registered.”

    WallStreetJournal continues:

    “the negotiating teams departed Friday with a working document in hand—the first concrete advance in months. Diplomats said all sides appear committed to reach an accord and they left with plans to return July 2 for a mammoth negotiation session that could run through July 20.”

    Behind the scenes one can but notice how loudly the Israel-firsters are complaining, and demonizing Obama’s foreign policy, be it on nukes, or Iraq, or Syria. Louder still has been the Obama administration’s deafness to all the cacophonous bleating.

    I only hesitate to mention UK re-opening her embassy in Tehran, fearing Canning might chirp in with tweets. But, UK is often the canary in the mine if you want to predict what’s down the pike for shifts in US foreign policy.

    It all adds up. ISIS is not some regime change conspiracy. Its success (or the spectacular failure of Iraqi military) was a surprise that served as an unexpected clarion call. RHS’ July 20th deadline is no longer a time limit for a nuclear deal, it is drop-dead date for US and Iran’s attempt to team up to re-establish order in the middle east before chaos burst through all boundaries.

  148. kooshy says:

    Does anybody have a source to confirm this report by WSJ.

    “Iraq’s Top Shiite Cleric Calls for New Government
    ‘Effective’ Government Needed That ‘Avoids Past Mistakes’”

    “BAGHDAD—Iraq’s most influential Shiite cleric called on Friday for Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to step aside, breaking ranks with the leader of the Shiite-dominated government after nearly two weeks of fighting with Sunni militants that has left the country’s military humiliated.

    In a sermon to worshipers in the holy city of Karbala, a spokesman for Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani didn’t mention the prime minister by name. But Ahmed al-Safi said it was time for a different administration in Iraq, which is beset by a powerful Sunni insurgency led by the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham.”

  149. BiBiJon says:

    kooshy says:
    June 20, 2014 at 4:42 pm

    I am not surprised. Are you?

  150. kooshy says:

    BiBiJon says:
    June 20, 2014 at 4:50 pm

    Just this morning I told a friend that I no longer trust a single word coming out of western media or politicians, not even on WC scores.

    WSJ is no better than Tokyo rose or Baghdad bob.

  151. nico says:

    kooshy says:

    “Just this morning I told a friend that I no longer trust a single word coming out of western media or politicians”

    Sure that is truly failed polities.
    Only Canning still wallow in the crap coming out of those organs.
    But no doubt I will hold him accountable here.
    Surely the so called “brick layer” words and common sense is needed to bring such thugs and obviously failed people to earth.

  152. kooshy says:

    This is what it is doubtful
    About this report see the bold letters

    “In a sermon to worshipers in the holy city of Karbala, a spokesman for Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani didn’t mention the prime minister by name. But Ahmed al-Safi said it was time for a different administration in Iraq, which is beset by a powerful Sunni insurgency led by the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham.”

    So is not clear if mr Safi is the spokesman for GA Sistani or he just is one guy that This WSJ reporter found that his interpolation of what the spokesman of GA Sistani said is that Mr Malki has to go, which is conformity with entire American establishment from
    The neocons all the way to Tom Hyden . I would love to find out for fact if the spokesman for GA Sistani in fact meant that Mr Maliki’s time is up.

    Empty/ Bibi/ Bib Janns any idea if in fact this is what The GA wants ?

  153. nico says:

    “I was reading an article in the Financial Times by Council on Foreign Relations president, Richard Haass, where he says that Maliki’s military forces in Mosul “melted away”. Interestingly, the Haass op-ed was followed by a piece by David Gardener who used almost the very same language. He said the “army melts away.” So, I decided to thumb through the news a bit and see how many other journalists were stung by the “melted away” bug. And, as it happens, there were quite a few, including Politico, NBC News, News Sentinel, Global Post, the National Interest, ABC News etc. Now, the only way an unusual expression like that would pop up with such frequency would be if the authors were getting their talking points from a central authority. (which they probably do.) But the effect, of course, is the exact opposite than what the authors intend, that is, these cookie cutter stories leave readers scratching their heads and feeling like something fishy is going on.”


    About presstitute and mass propaganda and crap.
    The kind Canning looove to wallow in.

  154. James Canning says:


    The Iraqi army fled Mosul and other places. What term other than “melted away” in your view would better describe what took place?

  155. James Canning says:


    The FT said that foolish cheerleaders for the idiotic invastion of Iraq have no business advising the US on what to do in Iraq just now. You apparently disagree.

  156. James Canning says:


    The US was exceptionally foolish in forcing Iran to enrich to 20%. But Iran should not have announced its intention of trebling such producti8on. Why? Because it in effect said Iran had been lying about its reasons for going to 20 in the first place.

  157. James Canning says:


    Quite a few people who post on this site codemn the US for blocking the proposed nuclear fuel swap. Do I gather you think Iran should just do as it pleases and let the chips fall where they may?

  158. nico says:

    James Canning

    You did not answered my question. You thug.

  159. nico says:


    With your kind of deaf oligarchic failure only engaging in monolog there is no way one can interect with you.
    There is no room for politeness for your kind of thug, failure and dinosaur.
    Only brick layer common sense and uprising will bring you and the like in the dustbin of history.

  160. James Canning says:


    What question have I not answered? My position: Iran can have a limited nuclear programme, including enriching to 5% for refueling nuclear power plants. And to 20% to refuel TRR. I think P5+1 will accept this.

  161. BiBiJon says:

    kooshy says:
    June 20, 2014 at 5:39 pm

    I believe what he has said is: the parliament should hurry up and form an effective government.

    Folks are reading what they like in that otherwise non-controversial “urging.”

  162. kooshy says:

    “My position: Iran can have a limited nuclear programme, including enriching to 5% for refueling nuclear power plants. And to 20% to refuel TRR. I think P5+1 will accept this.”

    Doesn’t this position of yours make (mean) Iran is a nuclear capable state.

    Is that now acceptable to the global arrogance and associated client states

  163. Empty says:


    Below is the link to the bulk of Ayatollah Sistani’s representative’s sermon at the Friday prayer. Not only he does not even hit at the legitimacy of the Iraqi government, but also he calls for the formation and coordination of militia groups within the framework set by and under direct supervision of the government.

    The segment you highlighted is (not surprisingly) along the same Shi’a vs. Sunni sectarian line that the West is trying to foment. In reality though, it is forcing the Sunni populations to choose what sort of a Sunni they really want to be: 1) a wahabi/salafi one (like Saudi Arabia, et al.); 2) an American Sunni (like Turkey et al.); or 3) an authentic and independent Sunni.

    Thanks to the policies of the US Inc. and on the ground operations, the Sunni’s favoring the option that would be really good for all Muslims, the region, and for Iran.

  164. kooshy says:

    Empty says:
    June 20, 2014 at 10:13 pm

    Empty Jaan

    Thank you for posting the link, it’s exactly what I thought, for me it was hard to believe the highest religious authority in Iraq the man who forced the American to accept people’ vote to elected their government all of a sudden to shift in opposite direction and asks the just elected government to step down as if they are not a good fit. But at the same time as we all in the world see, the only self-proclaimed world leader, the exceptional, the one and only protector of democracy and human right in the world, is the only one who has the audacity to remove by force, or to ask legally and legitimately elected governments to step down because he doesn’t like them or it’s not in the interest of his country. In mean time and as usual this AH doesn’t have the audacity (balls) to publicly say what he wants so he ends up using his propaganda media to make belief what he wants is what GA Sisitani wants. This may work for him in DC, but I can’t see how it may work in Baghdad or Najaf.

  165. kooshy says:

    As usual Mr. Zarei perfectly to the point explains Iran’s policy on Iraq, he is one of most knowledgeable Iranian analysts of ME, I don’t know what Mr. Zarei’s education is but he is on target mist of the time

    Sorry this is Kyhan’s Saturday editorial and is in Persian

    آمریکا، کمی تا پایان ماجرا(یادداشت روز)

    «تغییر دولت در عراق» به یک مخمصه بزرگ برای غرب و متحدان منطقه‌ای آن تبدیل شده است. چرا که از یک سو تغییر دیپلماتیک این دولت امکان‌پذیر نیست و نتایج انتخابات اردیبهشت‌ماه پارلمان از آن خبر می‌دهد و از سوی دیگر تغییر خشن آن نیز امکان‌پذیر نیست و توقف روند حرکت ارتش بعثی تکفیری- موسوم به داعش- از آن حکایت می‌کند. هم‌اینک آمریکا نه مایل به کمک به بغداد برای برون‌رفت از این شرایط است و نه قادر است حمایت موثر پنهانی از تروریست‌ها در عراق را علنی انجام دهد. باراک اوباما در این میان امیدوار بود ایران در حمایت از هم‌پیمان خود در بغداد نیروی نظامی به سمت استان‌های سنی‌نشین صلاح‌الدین، نینوا و الانبار اعزام کند تا اقدامات علنی ترکیه، اردن و عربستان در حمایت علنی و موثر از تروریزم عملی گردد اوباما معتقد بود ایران نمی‌تواند در برابر تهدید عتبات عالیات شیعه واکنش فوری نظامی نداشته باشد از این رو مقامات وزارت خارجه آمریکا پس از آن که نشانه‌ای از اقدام نظامی ایران نیافتند، موافقت رسمی خود را با این نحوه مداخله اعلام کردند. جان کری وزیر امور خارجه هفته پیش پا را از این هم فراتر گذاشت و گفت ما حتی به ایران برای ورود نظامی به عراق کمک هم می‌کنیم! وی گفت: «اگر ایران آماده ایفای نقش سازنده در عراق باشد، واشنگتن برای گفت‌وگو با تهران آماده است در این میان همکاری نظامی نیز غیرممکن نیست.»
    بحران جاری برای آن ایجاد شد تا دولت جدید عراق که به زودی تشکیل می شود، متحد جبهه مقاومت نباشد. پیش از این هم آمریکایی‌ها با صراحت از لزوم تغییر در بغداد سخن گفته بودند. چهار سال پیش در روز انتخابات دوم پارلمانی عراق، باراک اوباما با یک جمع‌بندی غلط اعلام کرد که این انتخابات فرایند سیاسی و دولت را تغییر می‌دهد که البته اینطور نشد و دولت عراق متحد جبهه مقاومت باقی ماند و حتی خود نوری‌ مالکی باردیگر به نخست‌وزیری رسید این در حالی بود که در آن مقطع حدود 300 هزار نیروی نظامی و اطلاعاتی آمریکا در عراق حضور داشتند و به طور مستقیم می‌توانستند مخالفان داخلی دولت عراق را برای جداسازی عراق از جبهه مقاومت مدیریت نمایند. الان هم آمریکایی‌ها بیش از داعش، انگشت اتهام را به سمت دولت فعلی عراق نشانه رفته و مدعی‌اند که عامل اصلی بحران امنیتی کنونی شخص «نوری‌ مالکی» و سیاست‌های هشت سال اخیر او می‌باشد! باراک اوباما می‌گوید بحران کنونی راه‌حل نظامی ندارد و بدون کناره‌گیری مالکی از قدرت به سرانجام نمی‌رسد. روزنامه سه‌ روز پیش نوشت: «اوباما در سخنرانی خود بغداد را به اتخاذ سیاست‌های تبعیض‌آمیز متهم و کمک به این کشور را به تغییر وضعیت فعلی مشروط کرد.» وزیر خارجه سابق آمریکا، هیلاری کلینتون نیز در گفت‌وگو با شبکه فاکس‌نیوز، مالکی را مسبب بی‌ثباتی عراق نامید و ارائه کمک‌های نظامی آمریکا به عراق را تنها به شرط برکناری نخست‌وزیر از قدرت ممکن دانست.
    آمریکایی‌ها در حالی که مهمترین اتهام نوری‌المالکی را هم‌پیمانی با جبهه مقاومت می‌دانند، از ایران می‌خواهند که نیروهای نظامی خود را برای مهار تروریزم به عراق بفرستد! آمریکا برای آنکه ملاحظات ایران را در ورود نظامی به پرونده امنیتی عراق کم کند اعلام کرد که حاضر است در این مواجهه، کمک‌های نظامی را در اختیار ایران قرار دهد. واشنگتن از این سیاست چند هدف را پیگیری می‌کند:
    1- ورود ایران به پرونده امنیتی عراق، تهران را درگیر مخمصه‌ای می‌کند که ضمن تحمل هزینه‌های فراوان، انتهای آن مشخص نیست و البته طولانی مدت شدن آن خالی از تصور نیست از منظر آمریکا، چنین مداخله‌ای توان نظامی ایران را مستهلک می‌کند و اتهام قدیمی و بی‌دلیل دخالت ایران در امور همسایگان را مدلل می‌گرداند.
    2- مداخله نظامی ایران در عراق به دولت‌های ترکیه، اردن، عربستان، امارات و قطر امکان می‌دهد تا سیاست‌های غیررسمی حمایت از تروریزم در عراق که تأثیر عمده‌ای در معادله امنیتی عراق ندارند را به سیاست‌های رسمی و جدی‌تر تبدیل کرده و حضور نیروهای نظامی و شبه نظامی خود که هم اینک هم بنا بر اسناد افشا شده در کنار تروریست‌های بعثی تکفیری- موسوم به داعش- را توسعه داده و توجیه کنند 3- مداخله نظامی ایران در عراق، انفعال نسبی آمریکا در امور عراق را که ناشی از شکست سابق و ناتوانی فعلی در تأثیرگذاری بر روند سیاسی عراق است، توجیه می‌نماید یعنی دولت اوباما می‌تواند ادعا کند که انفعال سیاست واشنگتن در عراق ناشی از این است که میان اهداف آمریکا و اهداف ایران از یک سو و اهداف تروریست‌ها در عراق از سوی دیگر ناهمخوانی جدی وجود دارد و در نهایت آمریکا از شکست هر کدام از این دو منتفع می‌شود، بنابراین نیازی به مداخله و اتخاذ سیاست فعال ندارد. دقیقاً در این راستا سه روز پیش روزنامه آمریکایی «وال‌استریت ژورنال» به نقل از یک مقام بلند پایه آمریکا نوشت: «آمریکا گزینه حمله هوایی علیه مواضع گروه تروریستی داعش را کنار گذاشته است.»
    اما ایران در مواجهه با بحران‌های امنیتی منطقه از جمله آن دسته از بحران‌های امنیتی که علیه هم‌پیمانانش تدارک دیده شده و از آبشخور مشترک بین‌المللی – منطقه‌ای بهره‌مند می‌باشد، سیاست خاص خود را دارد و به تجربه هم ثابت شده است که این سیاست موفق بوده است.
    ایران ضمن رصد جدی و لحظه‌ای تحولات منطقه، نیازی به مداخله نظامی در عراق نمی‌بیند. ایران حتی در سوریه 2011 تا 2014 هم نیازی به مداخله نظامی ندید و حال آنکه یک توطئه فراگیر و همه‌جانبه بین‌المللی و منطقه‌ای با محوریت آمریکا علیه سوریه شکل گرفته بود. ایران البته برای برون رفت متحد خود در دمشق اقدامات موثری انجام داد ولی این اقدامات هیچگاه شامل اعزام نیروی نظامی نشد. مهمترین اقدام ایران این بود که به توانایی دولت و ملت سوریه در خنثی کردن تهدیدات چند لایه و فراگیر که اسد از آن به درستی به «جنگ‌جهانی» تعبیر کرد، کمک کرد.
    از منظر ایران دولت و مردم عراق به مراتب از دولت و ملت سوریه قوی‌ترند در حالیکه بحران امنیتی عراق به مراتب ضعیف‌تر از بحران امنیتی سوریه است. آن روزی که آمریکا، اروپا، رژیم صهیونیستی، ترکیه، اردن، عربستان، قطر به صحنه آمدند تا دولت دمشق را سرنگون کنند و در این راه سه جریان تروریستی – شامل داعش، جبهه‌النصره و ارتش آزاد – به وجود آوردند، خیلی‌ها گمان می‌کردند طی چند هفته دولت دمشق سقوط می‌کند اما امروز کمتر کسی در اینکه دولت عراق بر جبهه تروریزم غلبه خواهد کرد، تردید دارد.
    ایران البته هیچگاه متحدان خود را در بحران تنها نمی‌گذارد و با تمام وجود از آنان دفاع می‌کند سیاست ایران در مسایل منطقه‌ای کاملا اخلاقی و جوانمردانه است و همه جاذبه سیاست‌های منطقه‌ای ایران، به اخلاقی بودن آن باز می‌گردد. سیاست ایران در مواجهه با بحران امنیتی عراق بر ورود نظامی استوار نیست اما این به معنای انفعال نیست.
    ایران، حل بحران کنونی را در توان داخلی دولت و ملت عراق می‌داند و همه تلاش خود را در تقویت همگرایی داخلی بخش‌های مختلف پازل قدرت در عراق معطوف کرده و نشانه‌های موفقیت این سیاست را می‌توان در نزدیکی مواضع بخش‌های مختلف حاکمیتی و مردمی در عراق مشاهده کرد. آگاهان سیاسی به خاطر دارند که حدود 7 ماه پیش نزدیک به بیست میلیون شیعه عراقی در روز اربعین حسینی در کربلا حضور پیدا کردند و قدرت و عرق ملی و مذهبی خود را به رخ جهانیان کشیدند. چگونه ممکن است چنین مردمی حریف چند هزار تروریست مزدور نشوند؟ از سوی دیگر بر خلاف سوریه که نیروهای آن تجربه درگیری‌های داخلی و مواجهه فراگیر با پدیده تروریزم را نداشتند و تنها به ارتش کلاسیک خود متکی بود، عراق دست‌کم 30 سال تجربه چنین درگیری‌هایی را دارد و سازمان‌های شبه نظامی نظیر سپاه بدر، جیش‌المهدی، عصائب حق و… را در اختیار دارد و می‌تواند در مدت کوتاهی مناطق اشغال شده در سه استان سنی‌نشین را آزاد نماید.
    آمریکا در عراق به مخمصه عجیبی گرفتار آمده است. تغییر دولت در عراق از طریق تروریزم وحشی آخرین شانس و ابتکار آمریکا به حساب می‌آید. اگر دولت کنونی عراق از این بحران، سربلند بیرون آید، مسلما دولت عراق به اصلاح «نظم کنونی» و مسامحه‌های خسارت‌باری که در اعمال حق حاکمیتی اکثریت انجام شده، مبادرت می‌ورزد. ارتش عراق قطعا اصلاح جدی خواهد شد و از وضع متفرق کنونی به وضع منسجم تبدیل می‌شود. کما اینکه این اصلاحات جدی، دستگاه امنیتی عراق را نیز دربر خواهد گرفت. این ضمن آنکه موضع دولت در مواجهه با اختلافات داخلی را تقویت کرده و به آن امکان فیصله‌دهندگی می‌دهد، آمریکا و رژیم‌های ترکیه و عربستان را به شدت نگران می‌کند.
    روند شرایط عراق بیانگر آن است که عراق بدون کمک آمریکا به بغداد و حتی با وجود کمک آمریکا به تروریزم، از بحران کنونی خارج می‌شود. در این صورت همکاری بغداد- تهران تقویت می‌شود بدون آنکه با دخالت نظامی ایران توام شده باشد. انفعال آمریکا در بحران عراق، ترکیه و عربستان و رژیم صهیونیستی را به شدت عصبانی می‌کند چرا که چنین انفعالی، آخرین امیدهای این دولت‌ها به غلبه منطقه‌ای بر جبهه مقاومت را به یاس مبدل می‌کند. ترکیه بعد از شکست در سوریه و پس از ناکامی در تغییر دولت بغداد با بحران بزرگی مواجه می‌شود چرا که عراق و سوریه تنها کشورهایی هستند که جغرافیای ترکیه را به منطقه عربی متصل می‌کنند. عربستان نیز با شکست در عراق و به دلیل رو شدن سیاست‌های تروریستی آن، به انزوا می‌رود. پیروزی جبهه اصیل مقاومت دو مدل ترکی و سعودی را منزوی می‌کند و زمانی که این دو رژیم با بن‌بست مواجه ‌شوند، امید رژیم صهیونیستی نیز در اینکه با یک اتحاد منطقه‌ای بتواند نگرانی‌های امنیتی حیاتی خود را کاهش دهد به یاس مبدل می‌گردد.

    سعدالله زارعی

  166. kooshy says:

    Someone should translate this for Gav
    مهلت !
    (گفت و شنود)
    گفت: از نتیجه مذاکرات وین چه خبر؟
    گفتم: 5+1 باج می‌خواست، ایران باج نداد و توافقی حاصل نشد و ادامه مذاکرات به اواسط تیرماه موکول شد.
    گفت: پس مذاکرات بدون نتیجه هم نبوده!
    گفتم: چه عرض کنم؟! به شخصی گفتند دو تا درخواست داریم. اول این که یک میلیون تومان به فلانی قرض بدهی و دوم این که برای بازپرداخت آن دو سال مهلت بدهی. یارو گفت؛ درباره پول که اصلا حرفش را نزن. ولی چون نمی‌خواهم روی شما را زمین بزنم، مهلت هرچه بخواهید می‌دهم، اصلا به جای دو سال 20 سال مهلت می‌دهم

  167. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Khomeini: “Real benefit of nuclear powered submarine for Iran will be its ability for long distance reconnaissance mission in ocean – atlantic ocean perhaps.”

    And exactly what would they be reconning FOR? Ridiculous…

  168. Richard Steven Hack says:

    BiBiJon: “Not fair. I get one measly month, while any conflict that erupts, ever, proves your doggedly stuck to line: the elite crave war.”

    Life ain’t fair. You’re the one making specific predictions which have to occur within a given time frame. I make predictions based on the interests of the parties involved.

    “Obama could not be clearer.”

    Wow…You’re actually believing OBAMA now? Seriously, you’re on crack…But then you always have been here.

  169. Khomeini says:

    Richard Steven Hack says:
    June 21, 2014 at 2:34 am

    “And exactly what would they be reconning FOR? Ridiculous…”

    You need to learn a lot about military reconnaissance mission. You are clearly ignorant about it.

    You are not appreciating my comment because I disproved your bogus claim of Iran needing nuclear powered submarine to deal with Israel and US naval presence in Persian Gulf.

    You are so “Ridiculous”.

  170. yk says:

    RSH, yes they are not your words but when you paste the article you subscribe to its substance.

    “Sunni insurgents” is not the scourge as Sunnis have the right to protest their grievances when they felt marginalised and I believe that is a given under any system of government. Take a look at Yemen are the Houthi Shias not protecting themselves and clamouring for their inclusion in the state affairs with weapons against the central authority? To refer to them as a scourge would be unjustifiable. There are lots of injustices out there in the middle east curtsey of America’s ‘shock and awe’ diplomacy.

    Takfiris who happens to be brainchild of the US/ZIO/AL SAUD are the scourge and they do not represent Sunnis, in fact they are not Muslims so how can they represent any Islamic sect. You may want to question why I said they aren’t Muslims please read the article l posted.

    As for my knowledge of english language please feel free to teach me.

  171. yk says:

    Khomeini, as for Iran not turning the mehdi army into NDF look no further than what you posted. US turning the heat on Maliki to get rid of the Mehdi army translate to the fact that Iraq was securely under the US tumb then.

    For Sadr and Iran, to resist could create a unbridgeable division or even a civil war among the Shias of Iraq a great deservice to Iran’s strategic interest in the long term and a obvious hindrance towards building a local civilian forces.

    Iran choose the best course which is to support covertly low intensity insurgents warfare and allow America to ware itself out. In the end America sow but Iran reap.

  172. yk says:

    RSH, “The counter argument is clear:

    1) Iran is ALREADY being threatened with war for NOT having a
    nuke program.”

    I agreed to that with all this ‘all options are on the table’ stuff coming from America’s politicians, though that is gradually loosing its substance and is seen more as a bluff than a reality.

    2) “Therefore Iran will never be able to develop a credible nuclear
    force without being attacked before it could do so.”

    Iran as stated times without number that it has no interest in developing nuclear weapon as it is contrary to her religious doctrine which it hold dear and from a strategic point of view. And the Supreme Leader also have a fatwa against nuclear proliferation though he also said if Iran had wanted a nuclear weapon no forces in the world could have stop her, meaning he called their bluff.

    3) “It would be impossible for Iran to develop a credible nuclear force
    during a conflict with the US as a result of 2).”

    In an interview by Ahmadinejad while he was still the president he mentioned that ‘do they think Iran is stupid that it would develop a nuclear weapon against their own thousands.’ Meaning strategically it is untenable. But not because of the reason you gave in 2).

    4) “If Iran has enough military strength today to serve as a deterrent
    against attack, as some here have suggested (I don’t), then Iran
    doesn’t NEED nukes as a deterrent.”

    In the history of the US since her inception, she has never waited for a reason to attack a perceived weak opponent. And pray tell in our contemporary time how many nations which can decisively hit back has America attack in spite of there open enmity? But yes I agree Iran doesn’t need a nuke. Please feel free to correct my english.

  173. kooshy says:

    تحریف سخنان نماینده‌ آیت‌الله سیستانی در راستای طرح «حذف مالکی»

    این رسانه‌ها سخنان نماینده آیت‌الله سیستانی را بر درخواست ایشان جهت برکناری نوری مالکی و تشکیل دولت وحدت ملی تعبیر کرده‌اند و اکنون بر آن مانور می‌دهند.

    حجت الاسلام صافی، روز گذشته در خطبه‌های نماز جمعه گفت: «دادگاه فدرال عراق، نتایج انتخابات را تأیید کرده است و قانون اساسی نیز پیش‌بینی های لازم را برای تشکیل پارلمان و دولت و انتخاب رئیس پارلمان و رئیس‌جمهور در نظر گرفته است، و این بسیار مهم است که همه به این قوانین پایبند بوده و آن را زیر پا نگذاریم».

    وی طرف‌های پیروز را به گفت‌و ‌گو و تشکیل دولتی کارا با حمایت ملی فراخواند اما رسانه‌های معاند مانند شبکه العربیه سعودی و روزنامه سعودی الحیاة چاپ لندن، با انتقال نادرست این سخنان برداشت و خواسته عربستان را که در چند روز اخیر مکرر اعلام شده، یعنی تشکیل دولتی موسوم به وحدت ملی، مطرح کردند.
    – See more at:

  174. kooshy says:

    Iran’s Important Role in the Future of the Middle East
    How Iran is at the center of the new Middle East, and why the United States doesn’t mind

  175. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Khomeini: “You need to learn a lot about military reconnaissance mission. You are clearly ignorant about it.”

    In other words, you can’t answer my question.

    “You are not appreciating my comment because I disproved your bogus claim of Iran needing nuclear powered submarine to deal with Israel and US naval presence in Persian Gulf.”

    I didn’t say anything about Israel NEEDING submarines. YOU were the one who suggested Iran should use nuclear submarines as an excuse to enrich to 60%. I suggested that there might be some use for them, but very little use without additional military technologies which would probably take Iran decades to develop.

    You obviously are incapable of comprehending plain English, so I think I should ignore you from here on out.

  176. Richard Steven Hack says:

    White House: ISIS Airstrikes Won’t Be Confined to Iraq
    Obama ‘Willing to Go Into Other Countries Where Necessary’

    It’s now absolutely clear that Obama intends to use the Iraq crisis to intervene in the Syria crisis…

  177. Richard Steven Hack says:

    What Happens If US Troops Run Into the Iranian Military in Iraq?

    All answers from the government have been deliberately vague…Make of that what you will.

  178. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Sen. Levin: ISIS Offensive Will Increase US Aid to Syria Rebels
    Says US Taking More ‘Forward-Leaning’ Position in Syria

    Translation: We’re going to continue arming them so we can use them as an excuse to further destabilize both Iraq and Syria.

  179. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Is Obama’s new Iraq strategy just a cover for expanding his secret war?

    He says ‘American forces will not be returning to Iraq’ – but if you read between the lines, covert drones could be flying over troubled waters. Time to play covert Whac-a-Mole

  180. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Gareth Porter on Iran’s Atomic Chief Decries IAEA Failure to Close Detonator Probe


    Based on the false premise that Iran had admitted to carrying out the experiments shown in the intelligence documents, the IAEA demanded that Iran provide the details of its EBW development program and allow visits to the site where Iran conducted testing of its EBW experiments.

    The objective of that demand appears to have been to provoke a rejection by Iran which could then be cited as evidence of noncooperation. When Iran refused to provide information on its conventional military applications of EBW technology, which were obviously secret, the Barack Obama administration and its allies used it to justify new international economic sanctions against Iran.

    End Quote

  181. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Iran rejects ‘excessive demands’ in nuclear talks with six powers

    Continues to be unlikely a deal will be reached within the next 4 weeks.

  182. Richard Steven Hack says:

    ISIS Assassination Plots Reflect Expansion Into Lebanon

    And of course, if ISIS is operating in Lebanon, Obama will want to bomb Lebanon…

    Where have I heard that before? Oh, yes, here every time I point out the plan is to degrade both Syria and Lebanon…

    Also, I note that getting US troops back into Iraq under the guise of “anti-terrorism” might be a nice pre-positioning of troops for an upcoming Iran war. While I don’t see the US dumping 100,000 troops into Iraq any time soon, I wouldn’t be surprised if whatever number is sent is there mostly for intelligence gathering against Iran (or Syria).

    People forget there are still 5,000 US troops in Kuwait. As Obama builds up forces in the area to deal with Iraq and Syria, those forces will remain available for an Iran conflict. 500 Marines currently on the way could easily turn into 5,000 at a moment’s notice, available for a Syria or Iran conflict.

  183. Richard Steven Hack says:

    NATO’s Terror Hordes in Iraq a Pretext for Syria Invasion


    Invading northern Iraq will allow NATO to then justify cross-border operations into eastern Syria. In reality what NATO will be doing is establishing their long desired “buffer zone” where terrorists can launch attacks deeper and more effectively into Syrian territory. With western Syria returning to peace and order after a series of victories for the Syrian government, the last front NATO’s proxy forces have is Al Qaeda’s arch of terror running along Turkey’s border and now, across eastern Syria and northern Iraq. NATO’s presence in northern Iraq would also provide an obstacle for Iranian-Syrian trade and logistics.

    End Quote

  184. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Iran military casualty in Iraq, IRGC-QF developments in Iraq

    No Iranians in Iraq, eh?

  185. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Iraqi Army M1A1M losses, IqAAC helicopter losses

  186. Richard Steven Hack says:

    The Battle for Iraq’s Oil Wealth

    It’s still all about oil…

  187. Karl.. says:


    By implying Iraq is filled with iranian soldiers you are making a great service to ISIS, neocons and other extremists involved in Iraq.

  188. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Beyond Maliki
    The Real Culprits in Iraq
    by Shireen T. Hunter

  189. Richard Steven Hack says:

    It’s all for Israel


    “It is no longer plausible to argue that ISIS was a result of unintentional screw ups by the US. It is a clear part of a US strategy to break up the Iran-Iraq-Syria-Hezbollah alliance. Now that strategy may prove to be a total failure and end up backfiring, but make no mistake, ISIS IS the strategy.”

    – Lysander, Comments line, Moon of Alabama

    So, good old Chalabi is on the short-list of candidates to take al Maliki’s place. Great. That just illustrates the level of thinking about these matters in the Obama White House. I don’t know how anyone can objectively follow these developments and not conclude that the neocons are calling the shots. Of course they’re calling the shots. Chalabi’s “their guy”. In fact, the goals the administration is pursuing, aren’t really even in US interests at all.

    Bear with me for a minute: Let’s assume that we’re correct in our belief that the administration has set its sites on four main strategic objectives in Iraq:

    1–Removing al Maliki
    2–Gaining basing rights via a new Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA)
    3–Rolling back Iran’s influence in the region
    4–Partitioning the country

    This is the plan. The United States does not benefit from this plan. The United States does not benefit from a fragmented, Balkanized, broken Iraq. The oil giants are already extracting as much oil as they want. Iraqi oil is, once again, denominated in dollars not euros. Iraq poses no national security threat to the US. US war planners already got what they want. There’s no reason to go back and cause more trouble, to restart the war, to tear the country apart, and to split it into pieces. The only reason to dissolve Iraq, is Israel. Israel does not want a unified Iraq. Israel does not want an Iraq that can stand on its own two feet. Israel wants to make sure that Iraq never remerges as a regional power. And there’s only one way to achieve that goal, that is, to follow Yinon’s prescription of “breaking up Iraq …along ethnic/religious lines …so, three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul.”

    This is the blueprint the Obama administration is following. The US gains nothing from this plan. It’s all for Israel.

    End Quotes

    Well, as the article I previously posted points out, it’s also “all about oil”.

    In other words, it’s ALWAYS about THREE things – not ONE thing:

    1) Oil
    2) Israel
    3) Military-industrial complex MONEY.

    All of which can be resolved down to the last one: MONEY. Which in turn can be resolved down to: POWER.

  190. Richard Steven Hack says:

    U.S. Will Create Joint Military Operations Centers in Iraq

    Notable Quote

    “If Iran is coming in solely as an armed force on behalf of the Shia and if it is framed in that fashion, then that probably worsens the situation and the prospect for government formation that would actually be constructive over the long term.

    “I think, just as Iraq’s leaders have to make decisions, I think Iran has heard from us. We’ve indicated to them that it’s important for them to avoid steps that might encourage the kind of sectarian splits that might lead to civil war.

    “Iran obviously should consider the fact that if its view of the region is solely through sectarian frames, they could find themselves fighting in a whole lot of places,” President Obama said. (The White House, 19 June)

    End Quote

    That sounds like a threat to Iran to me…

  191. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Iraq: Ayatollah Sistani hints that Parliament should dump al-Maliki as Muqtada mobilizes “Peace Brigades”

  192. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Inside Mosul: ISIS fears Popular Uprising; Baathists cry Foul

  193. Richard Steven Hack says:

    U.S and Iraq talking over legal immunity for troops

    One of the reasons Obama pulled out was because Maliki refused to make US troops immune to legal consequences.

    Clearly, Obama is using the Iraq crisis to revisit that – and that indicates Obama does intend to permanently station more troops in Iraq at some point. And the only reason for that is to have the option of supporting an attack on Syria or Iran from Iraq at some point.

  194. Karl.. says:


    You believe Iraq will accept attacks on Iran and Syria from iraqi bases? Come on now?!

  195. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Washington Relaunches its Iraq Partition Project


    Since 2001, the Chief of Defence of the United States has been trying to break the “broader Middle East” into a multitude of small, ethnically homogeneous states. The map of the remodeled area was published in July 2006 [1]. It plans to divide Iraq into three, a Sunni state, a Shiite and Kurdish one.

    Israel’s failure in the face of Hizbullah in the summer of 2006 [2], and that of France and the United Kingdom in Syria in 2011-14, gave the impression that the plan had been abandoned. That is not the case: the U.S. military leadership is trying to resume the project through the modern condottieri that are the jihadists.

    The facelift of the ISIL was achieved in the spring of 2014 with the release of Western prisoners it held: German, British, Danish, Americans, French and Italians. Their first statements confirmed in all respects the information from Syrian intelligence services: ISIL is managed by American, French and Saudi officers. However, the released prisoners quickly backtracked and handicapped their comments on the identity of their jailers.

    It is in this context that ISIL broke with al-Qaeda in May of 2014, posing as a rival, while Al-Nosra remained the official Al-Qaeda branch in Syria. Of course all this is only window dressing since in reality these groups, from their inception, have been backed by the CIA against Russian interests (Afghanistan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Chechnya, Iraq, Syria).

    The organization is certainly controlled on the ground by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, but it is under the authority of Prince Abdul Rahman al-Faisal, brother of Prince Saud al-Faisal (Saudi foreign minister for 39 years) and Prince Turki al-Faisal (former director of the Secret Service and current ambassador to Washington and London).

    In May, al-Faisal bought a weapons factory in Ukraine. Stocks of heavy weapons were flown to a Turkish military airport, where the MIT (Turkish Secret Service) forwarded them by special trains to ISIL. It seems unlikely that the supply chain could be implemented without NATO.

    It could be, however, that Washington has trapped Ankara. The ISIL has tried at the same time to take control of the tomb of Suleyman Shah, in Syria in the district of Raqqa. This tomb is owned by Turkey which has an on-site small garrison under the extraterritoriality clause of the Treaty of Ankara (imposed by the French colonizers in 1921). But this action may well have been sponsored by Turkey itself who will have thus found a pretext to openly intervene in Syria [4].

    Worse, when taking Mosul, the ISIL captured 15 Turkish diplomats and their families as well as 20 members of the Turkish special forces at their consulate, angering Ankara. The ISIL also detained truck drivers who were later released. Turkey, which provided the logistics for the ISIL attack, feels betrayed without anyone knowing whether it has been by Washington, Riyadh, Paris or Tel Aviv. This case is reminiscent of the July 4, 2003 arrest of 11 members of the Turkish special forces by the U.S. army in Sulaimaniyah (Iraq) popularized by the film Valley of the Wolves Iraq. [5] This episode had caused the biggest crisis of the last sixty years between the two countries.

    The most likely hypothesis is that Ankara did not expect to participate in such a vast offensive and discovered along the way that Washington planned to achieve the creation of Kurdistan which had failed in 2003. However, ever according to the map published in 2006, this must include a part of Turkey, the United States having planned to dissect not only its enemies but also its allies. The arrest of Turkish diplomats and special forces would be a way to prevent Ankara from sabotaging the operation.

    End Quotes

  196. kooshy says:

    In other words, it’s ALWAYS about THREE things – not ONE thing:

    1) Oil
    2) Israel
    3) Military-industrial complex MONEY.

    Really, you just discovered that? Ok, If these three “things” (objectives) what all the fuss is about, why not like the Leveretts combine these three “things” and call it (must have) regional “hegemony” once that is obtained all three are given. Don’t you think so?

  197. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Syria in the Crosshairs – Obama Confirms Airstrikes Will Not Be Limited to Iraq


    One year ago the Obama administration was doing their very best to build up public support for U.S. military intervention in Syria. Even though that attempt failed, no one who has been following this crisis closely believed for a moment that this was the end. They would regroup and try again from another angle.
    The angle they chose was surprising. Iraq has been off the media radar for so long that almost no one was factoring it in as an important geopolitical variable. ISIS (or ISIL) changed that.

    Oh, and this time Obama is not going to ask for permission from Congress.

    It is also yet to be seen whether the relentless anti-Russia propaganda campaign that western media outlets have been pushing since the Ukraine crisis will affect Putin’s ability to influence the outcome diplomatically. The annexation of Crimea will definitely be used to discredit Putin if he attempts to block airstrikes in Syria.

    End Quotes

    That last point I hadn’t considered that precisely: that the Ukraine crisis was generated precisely to hobble Russia in dealing with the Syria crisis. But it makes sense. I DID think that one of the reasons Obama was targeting Russia via the Ukraine crisis was because of his narcissism – he’s pissed off because Putin out-maneuvered him on the Syria chemical weapons ploy. But the idea that the Ukraine puts Russia on the defensive diplomatically makes equal sense.

  198. A-B says:

    Empty says:
    June 19, 2014 at 10:23 pm

    Yes, I agree, but I’m sure you know that I am referring to how the West makes itself victim of their ‘mistakes’ when those ‘mistakes’ are premeditated, as are the ‘blow backs’ (like 9/11 and 7/7) they stage to justify West’s reign of terror. Hillary Clinton has several times and publically admitted that the US created the Talebees in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and boohoos that that ‘mistake’ blew back on 9/11. I mean, would she repeatedly admit to this if it was an actual mistake?

    It is very ‘convenient’ that when the Western savages are defeated in Syria, ‘suddenly’ there is an attack on the Jewish Museum in Belgium the Brits can use as excuse to fence in their terrorists in the so-called ME, so that they can make as much damage as possible in Syria-Iraq-Lebanon and threaten Iran while they are kept out of savage Europe; according to the Mafia device “you don’t sh*t where you it”. Exactly as when the Brits knew there was no evidence that Syria had used CW (well they KNEW who had used it!!) and the window of attack on Syria was rapidly closing they used the ‘democratic’ card and betrayed Obama‘s bombing plans. Again, like the opportunists they are they want to ‘fight terrorists’ together with Iran!! “Yea, let’s be friends!” No, Let’s NOT!


  199. James Canning says:

    RS Hack,

    Obama apparently welcomed the Russian proposal (for getting rid of Syrian CW and avoiding a US attack).

  200. A-B says:

    “Obama is well aware that many of the insurgents in Syria are Islamic terrorists.”

    Well, if we’re going to engage in name-calling (calling the terrorists “Islamic”) I prefer to call these terrorists Britishites. After all they adhere to the tribal cult of Britishitism that the British has actively proselytized all over the world for quite some time now. Other Britishites are: Wahhabis, Neo-Nazis, Zionists, Mojahed-e Kharr, and loads of manufactured cultists (of ‘new’ and ‘old’ age).

    Let’s see: Prince elephant-ear of Britania [Charles] dances sword dance with prince monkey [Bandar in Hindi] of the Saudi-Wahhabia. Oboma, king of the Wild West, bows DEEPLY to both king croc[-eater] of Saudi-Wahhabia as well as queen-bitch of Britania. All of them just LOVE this unruly Zio-baboon Nuttiyahoo. And ALL of them support openly the rabid dogs of ISIS, because ALL of them despise Humans. Ergo; the ISIS are Britishites – they certainly are not humans to call themselves Muslim!

    Damn! I just tried to prove my point empirically – like the British – and suddenly I sounded like a Darwinist-Law-of-the-Jungle-Kipling; i.e. like a Britishite!


  201. James Canning says:


    Muslim insurgents. Islamic terrorists. They are not Buddhists. Or Hindus.

  202. James Canning says:


    I gave what I think is a likely deal, if one is to be achieved, between P5+1 and Iran as regards enrichment of uranium.

  203. A-B says:

    A-B says:
    June 21, 2014 at 6:17 pm

    Typo: the Mafia device is of course “you don’t sh*t where you eat” :-)

  204. Smith says:

    Even in football, Iran has to suffer the double standards and media propaganda attacks.

    It was as if the referee was working hard to make Argentine win. It was beyond shame.

    And the media also was working hard to make an image of a terrorist out of Iranian team:

  205. Richard Steven Hack says:

    kooshy: “Really, you just discovered that?”

    You know full well how MANY times I’ve said that here…

    “why not like the Leveretts combine these three “things” and call it (must have) regional “hegemony” once that is obtained all three are given. Don’t you think so?”

    Because the term “regional hegemony” can apply to other areas than the Middle East, whereas Israel and oil do not while the military-industrial complex desire for profits can apply to other regions. In addition, the term does not specify the REASONS for said desire for hegemony.

    “Regional hegemony” is one of those “think-tank terms” that aren’t specific enough to assign blame to the appropriate parties – something I’ve noticed the Leveretts seem careful not to do, probably because it would hurt their credibility to be relegated to the status of “conspiracy theorists”. But in fact, as I’ve said repeatedly, the oil industry, the military-industrial complex, the finance industry, Israel and its supporters in the US, and related elites do in fact control pretty much everything that goes on in the world.

    There was a study done a while back that demonstrated that some 2,000 corporations control eighty percent of the world’s wealth. And that within those 2,000 corporations, some 200 control eighty percent of that wealth. And when you consider how many people sit on the average board of directors of a corporation, this means perhaps 2,000 people control the wealth of eight billion.

    The problem is that if you kill those 2,000 people, another 2,000 will step up to take their places. So that’s not a solution – unless you could guarantee to be able to kill their replacements as well all down the line.

    The only solution is the proper application of technology to destroy those 200 – or 2,0000 – corporations. Exactly how this could be done is the subject of much of my speculation these days.

  206. humanist says:

    Is IRI incompetent in handling the drug addition in Iran?

    Facts are:

    – The distressing drug problem in Iran started about a decade before the revolution.
    – So far over 3700 Iranian members of Islamic Armed Anti-drug Brigade are killed by the (Afghan?) smugglers.
    – According UN, the ever-increasing number of addicts in Iran is about 2% of the population (1.2 million)
    – The statistics of drug-related social miseries (crimes, family related events such divorce etc) are quite alarming.
    – Under the US/NATO occupation the opium production in Afghanistan has increased drastically.
    – …

    Watch the following interesting video and think about the anti-US accusations regarding the addictions in Iran. If they make sense then are there some SADISTS in the camps of anti-Iran officials? If true, in these times of glorious progress in all scientific fields, can you see GIGANTIC CONTRAST between the scientific and political environs? Can analysis of such contrasts provide solutions to the seemingly unsolvable political / social problems of our time?

  207. Karl.. says:


    Do you have any source for these early “persecutions”?

    Take that vice president, the sunni, that got charged for terror related crimes awhile ago, show that the accusations against sunni groups arent taken from the air.

  208. Karl.. says:


    Yeah Iran deserved to win that game, so close, although to even participate in the World Championship is amazing for a state like Iran.

  209. Khomeini says:

    Richard Steven Hack says:
    June 21, 2014 at 2:35 pm

    “In other words, you can’t answer my question.”

    Sooo, you think I can’t answer your question !!! Let me educate you a bit hAcK !!!.

    A nuclear powered Iranian submarine on a long distance reconnaissance mission in Atlantic can give Iran the capability to enter US underwater territory and find out how good or how poor is US underwater electronic defence system in US’s own territorial water. Not to mention, such mission will give Iran, for the first time, to monitor US naval fleet operations on its home water. Got it ricHARD hAcK !!

    “I didn’t say anything about Israel NEEDING submarines.”

    I never said you said anything about Israel NEEDING submarines. In my previous post to you I unambiguously and categorically stated the benefits of nuclear powered submarine to Iran. Suddenly, now you are saying that you didn’t say anything about Israel needing submarines. Neither me nor you said anything about Israel needing submarines. You are trying to “manufacture” something just to avoid accepting that you arguments were weak. As I said, “You are not appreciating my comment because I disproved your bogus claim of Iran needing nuclear powered submarine to deal with Israel and US naval presence in Persian Gulf.”

    “YOU were the one who suggested Iran should use nuclear submarines as an excuse to enrich to 60%.”

    What !!!, I suggested “Iran should use nuclear submarines as an excuse to enrich to 60%.”. Man hAcK, you need to take some serious English Language classes. In my post ” Khomeini says: June 20, 2014 at 12:01 pm” I said the following:

    “This is what I think Iran should do – enrich uranium to 60% and power its nuclear submarines. But I am not sure Iran’s current negotiating team with p5+1 is willing to keep the right to enrich to 60% for submarines.”

    Where did I say Iran should use nuclear submarines as an excuse to enrich to 60%. Enriching uranium to 60% is Iran’s right; it is not a excuse or something Iran needs to beg western white men to donate to Iran.

    ricHARD hAcK, along with English Language classes please take some critical and analytical reading classes as well. You need it dude, you need it.

    It is you, Mr HaaaCk, who obviously are incapable of comprehending plain English. So I think I should ignore you from here on out.

  210. yk says:

    I guess some people don’t like being caught pant down. Just imagine when you take a position contrary to their own, they become aggressive and start lecturing you on how poor your understanding of english language is just because you have the audacity to prove their illusionary position wrong.

    They are suffering from their exceptionalism and they are on this forum to lecture people and not to learn from them because they already knows it all, part of their illusion.

  211. Empty says:

    The link about the “1st Iran military casualty in Iraq” posted by RSH [at http : // www . . html] reads:

    Certain Iranian media sources are reporting Iran’s first casualty in Iraq following the attack and ensuing exploitation by ISIL/ISIS militants in Iraq (some sources state he was the victim of an accident in “the west of the country”). The individual identified is IRGC guardsman Alireza Moshjari.”

    There is no discussion or indication by Uskowi as to how it determined the credibility of “certain media” reports in Iran versus other sources in order to determine which source was actually credible. It chose to side with one group’s sloppy report over another and stated in the title that the fellow was killed in Iraq.

    I explored many of the same sources in Farsi and Arabic. In the Iranian media that reported the fellow had been killed in Iraq, I found not a single source actually from Iran but all of them had directly or indirectly gotten their information from one single source: and here is where it came from and what it says: علي رضا مشجري .. أول شهيد من الحرس الثوري يسقط دفاعا عن كربلاء المقدسة و الأراضي العراقية…… [Translation: “Ali Reza Moshjeri .. the first martyr from the Revolutionary Guard killed while defending Holy Karbala and Iraqi Lands.” (Source: http: // www .]

    That’s it. No fact checking. No verification. No credible source citation. It would have been simply annoying if it weren’t so critical to be accurate.

  212. masoud says:

    What i loved most about Iran’s defeat was CQ’s reaction. What can you do in a situation like that, except to start to spout ‘conspiracy’ theories(which are, of course, nothing of the kind)? Our portugeese coach sounded refreshingly like Deuijan Napolean. He’s the best coach we’ve ever had, but for his own good, he should high tail it out of the country just as soon as his soon as the world cup is over, before it’s too late for him too. Slowly losing your mind is an unfortunate professional hazard associated with any job where you’ve got to represent Iran on the world stage.

  213. nico says:

    James Canning says:

    “I gave what I think is a likely deal, if one is to be achieved, between P5+1 and Iran as regards enrichment of uranium.”

    Sure from the very start you argue for Iran to give in Western ultimatum while it is proven fact that western fears are fabricated.
    If one had followed your advice years ago wiith such idiotic logic as yours Iran would be without a single centrifuges today.
    That is crux of the matter.

    My taie is that whatever the agreement if one is signed eventually. Iran will never relinquish 20%.

    Because that is a question of Principle. A question of sovereign right.

    But you have no principle. Just a dishonest idiot.

    You know the kind of principle you are TOTALLY devoid.

  214. Jay says:


    For those who have bought into the propaganda that US is no longer oil dependent, I present

    U.S. officials cut estimate of recoverable Monterey Shale oil by 96%

    I will remind you that this reserve was estimated to be about 70% of total US shale oil. In one fell swoop the US lost 60+ percent of its oil. I also remind you that this fact has been known in the academic circles and outside the media circus for quite some time.

    The US and her allies (The West) are very much dependent on oil. This balkanization (which has been in the works for two decades as I pointed out earlier) is very much a plan for resource grab.

    The depth of understanding and planning displayed by Iran’s leaders, Mr. Khamenei in particular, with regards to the West’s balkanization plan should impress even the skeptics.

  215. nico says:

    Sometime truth is coming out of the jackal’s mouth.

    “Netanyahu added: “I think that there are two actions you have to take: one is to take the actions that you deem necessary to counter this ISIS takeover of Iraq, and the second is nmmot to allow Iran to dominate Iraq the way it dominated Lebanon and Syria.
    “You actually have to work on both sides — as I say, you try to weaken both.””

    That is exactly the reason why the SL said that no US intervention should be accepted in Iraq.
    Either the US would make the situation worse or the US will strive to put a puppet in position of leadership in Iraq.
    There is absolutely no way the US could be benevolent in Iraq.

    Well it seems the SL has been well received.


    “The Shiite militia said it does not need or want help from the U.S.
    So much for a friendly third welcome of the US “liberators.”

    “If the Americans are thinking about coming back here, all of we Iraqis will become time bombs – we will eat them alive,” said Adel Jabr Albawi, who marched in Saturday’s parade, according to the Telegraph. “We can deal with Isis ourselves.”

    The threats from al-Sadr supporters could potentially open a second front for U.S. forces heading to Iraq.

    But it was not just Iraq clerics who raged against a return of the US. Also joining the anti-US chorus was – perhaps surprisingy all things considered- Iran’s own top leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who has vocally come out against US intervention in neighboring Iraq, where Islamic extremists and Sunni militants opposed to Tehran have seized a number of towns and cities.

    “We strongly oppose the intervention of the U.S. and others in the domestic affairs of Iraq,” Khamenei was quoted as saying by the IRNA state news agency on Sunday, in his first reaction to the crisis.

    “The main dispute in Iraq is between those who want Iraq to join the U.S. camp and those who seek an independent Iraq,” said Khamenei, who has the final say over government policies. “The U.S. aims to bring its own blind followers to power.””

  216. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Khomeini: “A nuclear powered Iranian submarine on a long distance reconnaissance mission in Atlantic can give Iran the capability to enter US underwater territory and find out how good or how poor is US underwater electronic defence system in US’s own territorial water.”

    And exactly what good does that do Iran without the capability to credibly threaten the US? None, that’s what.

    “Not to mention, such mission will give Iran, for the first time, to monitor US naval fleet operations on its home water.”

    Iran is uninterested in US naval movements anywhere outside the Middle East region – which would be the Arabian Sea, the Med, even the Indian Ocean – but not the Atlantic or home waters. Iran is not Russia or the former Soviet Union – or even China. They don’t need to capability to track US subs from home port. They will never have enough subs to compete with the US submarine fleet just as they would have enough nukes to compete with even Israel, let alone the US.

    You’re completely idiotic. Nuclear subs without nuclear cruise missiles are in no position to do anything against the US homeland or the vastly larger US attack submarine and counter-submarine fleet. Expending Iran’s budget on such a quixotic capability would be utterly pointless.

    Iran has repeatedly stated they see no need to try to compete with the US in nuclear weapons – and the same would apply to nuclear submarines in the contexts you cite. The only proper application would be against Israel or other regional enemies. And Iran could accomplish that by building the same sort of non-nuclear subs Germany has built for Israel, without having to expend a fortune on nuclear sub design or enriching to 60%.

    “This is what I think Iran should do – enrich uranium to 60% and power its nuclear submarines. But I am not sure Iran’s current negotiating team with p5+1 is willing to keep the right to enrich to 60% for submarines.”

    That’s precisely what you said. You just quoted yourself saying so. Why ELSE would Iran enrich to 60% except for nuclear submarines? And since nuclear subs aren’t particularly useful to Iran except in the Middle East arena, and since nuclear subs won’t be useful militarily without a host of other technological developments which Iran is still decades away from mastering – including nuclear subs themselves – why would Iran bother to antagonize the West further to enrich to 60%?

    You’re just looking for an excuse for Iran to enrich to 60% – and nuclear subs are a poor excuse. I know some officials in Iran have suggested nuclear subs are a good idea – and in the abstract, they are – and that therefore they should be able to enrich to 60% – and in that context, they are correct: they should be so allowed.

    But it’s not a good or economical idea until Iran has the other military capabilities that make nuclear subs useful – and the political cover to enable them to enrich to that level without geopolitical consequences.

    You’re merely using nuclear subs as an excuse to justify Iran enriching to a level it doesn’t need and can’t really use – just as others here have tried to justify a nuclear weapons program. You want to sneak such enrichment in by the back door because you know Iran’s leaders won’t enrich to that level without a good reason.

    Again, Iran fortunately is not being run by such people as you.

  217. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Empty: Re IRGC casualty…

    Twitter Post including picture of funeral. Make of it what you will.

    شیخ ابوبکرالباکستانی ‏@zbahs

    #Iran: Funeral of Alireza Moshjari from Revolutionary Guards. Unconfirmed reports say he died fighting ISIS in Iraq:

  218. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Empty: More on the casualty from The Guardian:

    1.06pm BST
    Iran’s first ‘martyr’ in Isis battle

    Iran’s “first martyr” in the battle against Isis in Iraq has been buried in Tehran, Saeed Kamali Dehghan reports.

    He was named as Alireza Moshjari from a special unit of the ground forces of the Islamic republic’s Revolutionary Guards, known as Saberin.

    Local news agencies published pictures of his funeral ceremony held in Tehran’s Shahid Beheshti mosque which was attended by hundreds of men and women who carried his coffin.

    Tasnim news agency, which is affiliated to the Revolutionary Guards, said Moshjari was killed due to an accident “in the West of the country” on Friday while being involved in an operation.

    Iraq is situated in the west of Iran but Tasnim did not clarify whether he was killed in Iraqi soil but a group of conservatives websites said he was “martyred while helping Iraqi Shias in their battle against Takfiri Isis”.

  219. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Colonel Patrick Lang posts on the Iraq situation:


    Iraq diary – 22 June 2014

    An Iraqi Army brigade (several thousand men) evidently completely disintegrated under rebel attack yesterday in western Anbar Province. This raises the level of my concern that something similar may occur with regard to Iraqi Army forces in general. Many armies are brittle instruments in which fear spreads from man to man untill all are running away, abandoning their equipment to the enemy.

    The ISIS produced long tape on their occupation of Ramadi and Fallujah earlier this year reveals the hopelss incompetence of the Maliki government’s forces. In one scene a small group of ISIS fighters armed with small arms, RPG-7s and satchel charges attack and overrun what looks like a police station. The facility is situated on the immediate side of the road. There are no fields of fire open to defenders. There are no fighting positions from which defenders can fire. There is no barbed wire or other obstacles outside the fortlet. The attackers simply walk up to the wall, throw a satchel charge into the courtyard and then crawl through a hole in the wall to massacre the inhabitants. Incredible! This incompetence rivals that of the US Army in the construction and siting of outposts in eastern Afghanistan during the period of the greatest infatuation with the COIN nonsense. pl

    Iraq Diary – 21 June 2014

    It seems that the importance of geography in war is not well understood anymore. Four days ago we forecast here that the rebel coalition would attack to clear and hold the al-Qaim Euphrates river crossing and the associated border crossing into Syria. It was clear that the rebels would need to open their line of communication into Syria. They have done that and have also taken the town of Rawah farther to the east on the Euphrates. There is another major bridge at Rawah and desert roads go straight north from that bridge to Tel ‘Afar and thence to the Mosul area. Captured Iraqi Army equipment is moving steadily to the west and south to Aleppo in some cases but most certainly down the gravel roads to Rawah and then on into Anbar Province to reinforce rebel forces. There are now photographs on the internet of Heavy Equipment Transporters (HET) loaded down with captured upgraded humvees, tanks and artillery. East of Rawah there is yet another bridge across the Euphrates at Haditha. This bridge is in rebel hands. A hard surface road runs straight from the bridge to Baiji where 200 government troops are fighting to retain the Baiji oil refinery. Pay attention, folks, the people running the rebel offensive know their craft well. pl

    Iraq Diary – 16 June, 2014

    – A casual inspection of the roads depicted in Google Earth reveals the centrality of the town of Tel ‘Afar to the probable logistical and operatonal plans of the people running the Rebel Forces offensive in Iraq. The rebels captured a lot of Iraqi Army equipment at verious places in the north of the cuontry; tanks (probably Russian made), artillery, armored personnel carriers, trucks and the ammunition to go with it. Such equipment is largely useless to a jihadi militia such as ISIS, but it is VERY useful to the former Iraqi Army officers and men who are the real fighters and planners among the rebel forces. The rebel forces now occupy Ramadi and Fallujahin in Anbar Province on the western avenue of approach into the Baghdad zone. From the rebel point of view it is desirable to move some of the captured equipment to Anbar Province where it will give weight to a rebel push towards Baghdad in conjunction with a rebel push south from the Samarra area. To get to Anbar from the Mosul region one must first go west and then south either within Iraq or eastern Syria. In either case the roads pass through Tel ‘Afar. For that reason the rebels needed to capture that city.

    End Quotes

    I’m amused that at one point he describes the insurgents moving as if “Guderian or Rommel were in charge”, i.e., WWII German generals noted for their speed of advance.

    One of his main points is that the Iraqi Army is moving north to try to blunt the insurgent advance – but is ignoring the insurgent units in western Iraq which could cut off the Iraqi Army supply line – and possibly produce a complete rout back to Baghdad, given the incompetence of the Iraqi Army.

    He also is arguing that the US needs to set up a full-scale evacuation plan for all US personnel in the country south to Kuwait and via airlift.

  220. nico says:

    Each time it smells blood you have Hack flooding the site with useless posts.


    We already lnow your point. MIC, Obama being a puppet, US after war in Syria to protect Israel and then attack Iran etc, etc…

    Why do you need to flood the site with nothing new ?

  221. James Canning says:

    Paul Pillar has great piece at today: “Fear of a decrease in fear of Iran”.

  222. James Canning says:


    I have said many times the US very stupidly in effect forced Iran to commence enriching uranium to 20%.

    You are quite right that this event later worked against Iran’s own best interests, in my judgment.

  223. James Canning says:


    I said that in my view the P5+1 might accept Iranian enrichment to 20, for purposes of fueling TRR. You replied Iran would never give up enrichment to 20. Of that I am not so sure.

  224. nico says:

    James Canning says:

    “I have said many times the US very stupidly in effect forced Iran to commence enriching uranium to 20%.”

    Again you are dampening the US responsibility.
    Trying to find excuses.
    That was no stupid policy. That was knonwingly thugish power policy.
    You are a lost case just like the FT not holding accountable W and cie as a war criminal a repeating it everyday until they are brought to court. You know just like the mass media campaign the MSM are specialized in and paid for when needed for some oligarchic goals.
    Because the Iraq war was maybe only a mere stupidity or maybe that was only might makes right.
    Totally devoid of principles you are.
    You maybe think you are polite or smart with such term as “stupid”.
    But you are not. You are just morally failed, unprincipled and dishonest. As much as the FT.
    Your kind need brick layers to bring you back to earth from your degeneration.

    “You are quite right that this event later worked against Iran’s own best interests, in my judgment.”

    I never said that that worked against Iran.
    To the contrary, I think that that was a smart and necessary move to force the US into negociation as the US were obviously intending to deny and sanction Iran all the same.

    “I said that in my view the P5+1 might accept Iranian enrichment to 20, for purposes of fueling TRR.”

    You are a dishonest liar.
    You have always been stating that Iran need to abandon the 20%.

    “You replied Iran would never give up enrichment to 20. Of that I am not so sure.”

    Well I have no crystal ball to see for sure in the future.
    But I am pretty confident Iran will never give up 20% or above per se.
    Maybe Iran wi offer transparancy measure well beyond what is required from any other country.
    And maybe they will draft the deal to just lilitate fuel production to actual civilian needs.
    But my take is that Iran wi never give up in a formal way its sovereign right.

    Were you less stupid and had less hubris, you would understand that is whole point of the Iran nuclear saga.
    No more no less.

  225. kooshy says:

    Bravo, Ayatollah Khamenei he never misses, by now the Americans should have learned, it is impossible to have him cornered, is unbelievable how disciplined he is (in his words)
    حضرت آیت‌الله خامنه‌ای با اشاره به سخنان مقامات آمریکایی که تلاش دارند، قضایای عراق را یک جنگ مذهبی قلمداد کنند، افزودند: آنچه که در عراق روی داده است، جنگ شیعه و سنی نیست، بلکه نظام سلطه با استفاده از پس‌مانده های رژیم صدام بعنوان مهره‌های اصلی و عناصر تکفیریِ متعصب به عنوان پیاده نظام، تلاش برای برهم زدن ثبات و آرامش عراق و تهدید تمامیت ارضی این کشور دارد

  226. Empty says:


    Thanks for the link. I particularly liked this one: “معتقدیم دولت و ملت عراق و مرجعیت دینی این کشور توانایی تمام کردن این فتنه را دارند و ان شاء الله آن را تمام خواهند کرد.”

    Translation/interpretation: “We believe the government and people of Iraq and religious leadership sources of this country all have the ability to finish this “Fitna” [sedition] and, God Willing, they will finish it.”

    I found his labeling of the events as “fitna”/sedition rather interesting.

  227. Empty says:


    Thanks for the links/posts. I am yet to find one single source (inside or outside of Iran, western or non-western) that has reported on this event by actually trying to do some original investigation or verification. Lazy asses. They are not worth the keyboard/pen with which they type/write.

  228. A concerned world citizen says:

    Anyone quoting sources from the “Uskowi on Iran” site might as well quote from Israeli sources or MKO sources. That guys is so biased it’s not even funny anymore.

    As per his interpretations, all the mess in the region is due to Iran’s leadership etc. His argument on the nuclear issue is similar to that of our resident troll, Mr. 20%-James Canning(if only Iran will blow up all their nuclear facilities today, all will be hunky-dory). He’s even gone as far as toying with the idea that Iran’s policies have created ISIL/ISIS. Like the BBC, he also considers the ISIS as a “Sunni” revolutionaries and tacitly supports them, much like his support for the same kind in Syria against Assad. His campaign against Assad on his little blog’s been just pathetic!

    Basically if you want anything anti-Iran, he’s your man. He’s basically an old man whose parents/relatives where linked with the Shah and have remained bitter till this day since the shah was deposed. Like many before him, he’ll also die in bitterness while Iran continues to thrive.

    People like Nader Uskowi don’t just blog “for fun”..

  229. Karl.. says:

    100% chemical weapons out of Syria

    Prepare now for 100% escalation in threats against Syria.

  230. A concerned world citizen says:


    100% chemical weapons out of Syria

    Prepare now for 100% escalation in threats against Syria.

    With the situation as is in the region now, any further escalation will be suicide on the empire’s part. This is not to say they wouldn’t make an attempt since when has logic been the bases of their decision making process?

    Just yesterday Israel launched an attack on Syria, AGAIN, on some cooked up pretext. As always, Syria remains quite and not retaliates. Seems the empire’s gone for broke. It’s all or nothing. Destabilization is the name of the game now.

    They’ve managed to somehow convince themselves that there won’t be any cost to them for their actions in the Middle East. But I’m not so sure.

  231. Sakineh Bagoom says:

    “You’re the one making specific predictions which have to occur within a given time frame. I make predictions based on the interests of the parties involved.”
    RSH, I am still waiting for your specific predictions of war on Iran by the end of 2011, by the end of 2012, by the end of 2013…
    One of these days you’ll realize that Iran is: “TOO BIG TO FIGHT.”

  232. Jay says:

    We learn once again that a deal with the West is not worth the paper it is written on!

  233. nico says:

    “‘Iran, Russia to finalize N-plants deal’

    Iran and Russia are set to finalize an agreement they have reached for the construction of at least two more nuclear power plants in the southern Iranian port city of Bushehr, a senior Iranian nuclear energy official says.

     Behrouz Kamalvandi, the spokesman for the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI), said on Monday that after months of negotiations, the deal will be signed this week, ISNA reported.”

  234. Jay says:

    Evidently the Polish FM does not think much of the West either! With apologies for the raw language

    “The Polish-American alliance is not worth anything. It’s even damaging, because it creates a false sense of security in Poland,” Sikorski allegedly said.

    “Complete bullshit,” the tape purportedly records Sikorski as saying. “We will get a conflict with both Russians and Germans, and we’re going to think that everything is great, because we gave the Americans a blowjob. Suckers. Total suckers.”

  235. Richard Steven Hack says:

    nico: “Why do you need to flood the site with nothing new ?”

    Oh, you’d rather this site have nothing but conversations with Canning, right?

    Practically every post on this site by readers has next to nothing to do with the real issues the Leveretts are running this site for.

    I suspect if the usual “lurker to poster” ratio for a site holds, a lot of people who don’t post here and don’t give a rat’s ass about Canning and religious discussions would like to have links to the most important articles that reveal what is actually going on.

    So I hope you don’t mind if I ignore your suggestion. In fact, I don’t give a rat’s ass if you do mind.

  236. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Sakineh Bagoom: “One of these days you’ll realize that Iran is: ‘TOO BIG TO FIGHT.'”

    You just keep telling yourself that.

    The reality is Iran is too big to conquer, but not too big to bomb.

  237. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Getting back to the important news…

    Israeli Air Strikes Pound Multiple Syrian Army Sites
    Blames Syria for Attack in Golan Heights

    Still trying to get that Syria war started…

    They’re back to using random incidents on the Israeli border to justify attacks intended to start a war with Syria.


    Israel’s air strikes don’t appear to be border-specific, but are hitting military targets across the region, including the nation’s military headquarters. Though the casualties are not yet clear, strikes that significantly degrade the Syrian military could inadvertently aid not only the US-backed rebels but also ISIS, the largest rebel faction, which has taken over much of the country’s east.

    End Quotes

    Degrading the Syrian military is EXACTLY the point, as I’ve been saying here.

    Oh, and hey, where’s that vaunted Syrian air defense? Might I suggest that it can’t be used against Israel because that would let Israel justify a full on attack? Which Assad knows he can’t survive…

  238. James Canning says:

    I recommend Ed Luce’s column in the Financial Times today. He gives the neocons a good bashing.

  239. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Another Yousaf Butt piece.

    Is Iran being victimized by sanctions it doesn’t deserve?

  240. James Canning says:

    RS Hack,

    You appear to be claiming that the P5+1 negotiations with Iran are not conducted in good faith and are essentially a scam for profiteering warmongers. Correct?

  241. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Iraq’s Military Seen as Unlikely to Turn the Tide

    While that assessment is true, given that this is the New York Times it’s probably intended to be a propaganda piece to justify the US re-invading Iraq… :-)

  242. James Canning says:


    I think you are well aware I have argued many times that Iran can have a limited nuclear programme. Your contention to the contrary is misleading.

  243. nico says:

    Richard Steven Hack says:
    June 23, 2014 at 1:01 pm

    “So I hope you don’t mind if I ignore your suggestion. In fact, I don’t give a rat’s ass if you do mind.”

    Sure feel free to express your point.
    The issue is that you do not express a point but copy and past article without any substance of your own.

    In addition you flood the site only when there is a smell of blood and we see you nowhere here when there is no US so called threat of war in the ME.

  244. James Canning says:


    I find it interesting you like to slip past the utter stupidity of the US, in its effectively forcing Iran to enrich uranium to 20%. Very curious situation.

  245. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Militants blitz through Iraq’s western desert


    The chief military spokesman, Lt. Gen. Qassim al-Moussawi, spoke on Sunday of tactical withdrawals to regroup and prepare to retake what has been lost to the militants.

    “Up until now, we don’t have a plan to retake any territory we lost. We are working on one still,” acknowledged a senior government official close to al-Maliki’s inner circle.

    A top Iraqi military intelligence official was equally blunt, saying the battlefield setbacks in the western Anbar province and the north have given the militants much more freedom of movement and their firepower has dramatically increased.

    “Their objective is Baghdad, where we are working frantically to bolster our defenses,” said the official. “I will be honest with you, even that is not up to the level of what is needed. Morale is low.”

    End Quotes

    The only question is whether the gathering Shia militias will have enough “weight” to offset the military capabilities of the Sunni insurgents – and whether their motivation to protect Baghdad – which is mostly Shia – will enable them to offset their relative lack of military training.

    What is almost certain is that even if Baghdad is adequately defended, the almost useless Iraqi military has zero chance of recovering the lost territory without major US (or Iranian) military assistance. This means Iraq will henceforth be a defacto split nation between a Sunni west, a Kurdish north and a Shia south.

    This also ups the ante for Syria’s Assad, as the Syrian insurgents will receive new weapons and recruits for that war.

    The only way out of this is if the Baathists and moderate Sunnis eventually turn on the jihadists as they did before. The Baathists have been clear that they don’t share the ideology of ISIS, so it’s likely that conflicts will break out once the overall military situation between the Sunnis and the government is stabilized. That probably won’t help the central government reclaim any territory, however, as if they attempt to do so, the Sunni tribes, Baathists and ISIS will just cooperate yet again.

    So unless the central government can become more inclusive through negotiation, Iraq is likely to be permanently split into three parts. And I don’t see negotiation working at all – there’s been too much death on both sides.

  246. Richard Steven Hack says:

    BBC’s Kim Ghattas reports on Twitter…

    Kerry- Obama not waiting for formation of gvt to prepare options or take action if needed. Joint command w Iraqi forces being set up

    I find the idea of a “joint command” amusing. What it will really be is the US taking over the Iraqi military and issuing the strategy. Whether that will work is questionable given the low morale of the Iraqi military.

  247. yk says:

    RSH as become a laughing stock on this forum and he is just tolerated so that war will not break out at the end of this year.

    So much for his toiletry analysis, anytime his predictions failed to materialise he found some flimsy excuses and move on to make more unrealistic predictions with a blend of arrogance and exceptionalism.

    I am still waiting for the English language lessons “Mr.
    War”, oh! sorry I mean Mr RSH.

  248. Sakineh Bagoom says:

    RSH: “The reality is Iran is too big to conquer, but not too big to bomb.”

    Let me spell it out for you. “TOO BIG TO CONQUER”, “TOO BIG TO BOMB”, “TOO BIG TO FIGHT.” Got it?

    Any more predictions by the end of this year?

  249. Richard Steven Hack says:

    From Colonel Pat Lang…


    Yesterday (22 June) ISIS fighters shot up a police bus in the area of Hillah (SOUTH of Baghdad). the police were transferring prisoners to a prison just north of Baghdad. 71 people were killed. This means that there is an ISIS presence SOUTH of Baghdad. The roads to Kuwait run through this area. This could become quite important in terms of the ongoing NEO.

    Are there still two US Army combat brigades in Kuwait? the British “Mail on Line,” indicates that there are 10,000 US military in Kuwait. But are these structured in maneuver brigades that could be useful in an overland NEO? The article also confirms the presence of USAF F-16s in Kuwait.

    End Quotes

    It’s interesting that there’s an ISIS presence south of Baghdad. The question would be are they merely mobile units without sufficient presence or can they move some of the Baathist military down there to cut supply lines to Kuwait? If the insurgents can partially encircle Baghdad north, west and south, that would be very bad news for Baghdad.

  250. nico says:

    James Canning says:

    “I find it interesting you like to slip past the utter stupidity of the US, in its effectively forcing Iran to enrich uranium to 20%. Very curious situation.”

    Sure very curious. Lol.
    Nothing else to add ?

  251. James Canning says:


    There may have been a “hidden agenda”, in the blocking of Iran’s IAEA applicatio0n to buy replacement fuel for the TRR. Iran’s enriching to 20 helped to wreck the proposed nuclear fuel exchange, as I am sure you are well aware.

  252. Richard Steven Hack says:

    OK, well, the consensus here once again is that nothing I say is useful, nothing I post is useful, and this entire forum should be given over to idiots like Canning and the pollyannas and other morons here who only want to argue abstract religious dogma.

    OK, so once again, I might as well bow out. This site used to have useful discussions in it, but hasn’t been that way for probably a year or two now. This appears to be the fate of just about every blog which allows comments – the conversation devolves into trolls and morons.

  253. yk says:

    RSH will be sourly missed on this forum so much for his copy and paste analysis. What a great loss it would be for this forum I hope this will not lead to war at the end of this year.

    Now the forum is now left to bricklayers who doesn’t realise that everything is all about war, blitzkrieg, pincer strike etc. Oh! Lord what about my english language tutorials. Lolz

  254. Sammy says:

    For kooshy, live on IRIB 2 , Mr. ZAREI about the situation in Irak….

  255. Castellio says:

    For the record RSH, I appreciate your postings because they often point to sources I might not have seen.

    If you use Lang’s site, I will pick up on your suggestions there.

  256. nico says:

    Richard Steven Hack says:
    June 23, 2014 at 2:07 pm

    “OK, well, the consensus here once again is that nothing I say is useful”

    Nobody here said that.
    But a little bit more analysis of your own and connecting the dot would be welcomed between rough transcripts.

  257. nico says:

    James Canning says:
    June 23, 2014 at 1:56 pm

    “There may have been a “hidden agenda”, in the blocking of Iran’s IAEA applicatio0n to buy replacement fuel for the TRR.”

    There was nothing hidden.
    The swap deal offered by the US was unbalanced without respecting a minimum Iran interests and legitimate amendments.
    As such that was a clear call of surrender. No hidden agenda here. And no stupidity from the US.
    That was a carefully crafted document.
    Thus inacceptable for Iran.

    “Iran’s enriching to 20 helped to wreck the proposed nuclear fuel exchange, as I am sure you are well aware.”

    Where did you see that ?
    Iran enriched at 20% only after turning down the US ultimatum which was rightly deemed illegitimate.

  258. kooshy says:

    Sammy says:
    June 23, 2014 at 2:21 pm

    Thanks Sammy I wish I had the chance to listen to him live

  259. Rd. says:

    Richard Steven Hack says:

    “Militants blitz through Iraq’s western desert”

    The US/UK/saudi terrorist blitzed thru Syria as well, even took over parts of greater Damscus!! Just taking over desert and some towns is not necessarily an advantage to the terrorists.. From ‘Operation Mersad’ some times you need to let the enemy come under your hammer.

    “The only way out of this is if the Baathists and moderate Sunnis eventually turn on the jihadists as they did before. The Baathists have been clear that they don’t share the ideology of ISIS “

    The more reason to let the ‘opposition’ get a taste of saudi sponsored terrorist! As for US waring on Iran, see how desperate the US is, they have to rely on saudi sponsored terrorists. Not too many options on the table. Just desperado mass murdering and killings by US inc.

  260. BiBiJon says:

    Richard Steven Hack says:
    June 23, 2014 at 1:32 pm

    “BBC’s Kim Ghattas reports on Twitter…

    Kerry- Obama not waiting for formation of gvt to prepare options or take action if needed.”

    Change “formation of gvt” to “formation of Shi’a militias” and Kim would be spot on.

  261. James Canning says:


    Iran began enriching to 20 in Feb. 2010. This fact complicated the proposed deal (Brazil/Turkey).

  262. James Canning says:


    By “hidden agenda”, I suggested that blocking a deal with Iran may have been intended by at least some of those involved in the negotiations. Goading Iran into enriching to 20 worked in favor of this scheme (assuming it existed).

  263. BiBiJon says:

    Big round of applause for US Inc. please!

    In the ‘equal opportunity’ mantra of non-sectarianism, US can now claim to be supporting the “oppressed” Sunnis of Syria, as well as the beleaguered Shiites of Iraq.

    Has supported the popular aspirations of Egyptians for democracy, as well as their aspirations for reversion to a military dictatorship.

    Any one who says the treasury department’s Terrorist Finance Tracking Program is overdoing it with denying Iranian hemophiliacs medicine, can just as well complain about the free flow of funds to ISIS.

    RSH imagines the elite bull are pawing the ground and are about to charge. Reality, sad to say, is just as Ay. Khamenei said, with this many gullible morons in the mid East happy to carry imperial H2O, there’s no need to charge the matador, just send in the fleas.

  264. nico says:

    James Canning says:

    “By “hidden agenda”, I suggested that blocking a deal with Iran may have been intended by at least some of those involved in the negotiations. Goading Iran into enriching to 20 worked in favor of this scheme (assuming it existed).”

    No one needs to implement a conspiracy.
    The Anglo track record in the region is clear enough for everyone to see.

  265. nico says:

    James Canning says:

    “Iran began enriching to 20 in Feb. 2010. This fact complicated the proposed deal (Brazil/Turkey).”

    Again you using ridiculous sophistry.
    The deadline was clear enough.
    That was the refueling of the TRR to keep it produce isotopes.
    Given the ridiculous leadtime offered by the west in the swap deal and the US nlt being kn the mood to find a balanced deal, Iran rightly decided to enrich.
    I am pretty confident the US were quite aware of the deadline.
    Thus again the onus is on the US.
    Not the other way arround.
    As a conclusion your point is crap.
    As usual.

  266. kooshy says:

    “I find the idea of a “joint command” amusing. What it will really be is the US taking over the Iraqi military and issuing the strategy. Whether that will work is questionable given the low morale of the Iraqi military.

    Rich I don’t know how good is the Iraqi military moral any better than you do. But what should really worry you and me is, how good the US military moral is after loosing every recent war since the WWII excepting the island of Grenada. I haven’t seen or read any past and present military commander ( including Lang) that’s really proud of any achievements. People like you who have perfect English should do the heavy lifting of protesting the “elites” desire for more wars, instead of throwing their arms in the air and saying nothing can be done, if everybody acted that way Syria bombing wouldn’t have been stopped, or in a same way Nixon would never bother to kiss Mao’s ass to let the US military leave.
    Don’t you agree?

  267. James Canning says:


    You seem incapable of grasping the point I was making: that enemies of Iran may well have wanted to force Iran to enrich to 20%.

  268. James Canning says:


    You also seem incapable of grasping the fact Iran’s announcement of intent to treble production of 20% U helped to wreck the “Anglo” plan of improving UK relations with Iran and Syria.

    Simplistic thinking is an obvious weakness I see in your comments.