Washington Ready to Repeat Past Mistakes in Nuclear Diplomacy with Iran; Tehran Thinks About a Plan B

 

The Obama administration is lining up to repeat, in its dealing with the Islamic Republic of Iran under Hassan Rohani’s presidency, many of America’s past mistakes in nuclear diplomacy with Tehran.  On the eve of Rohani’s inauguration as the Islamic Republic’s president, Flynt described to Ahmed Shihab-Eldin on HuffPost Live some of the old temptations to which America and its European partners seem inclined to succumb once again, see here (Flynt’s segment starts 12:58 into the video):          

There’s a temptation in the West to see Rohani’s election, to look at him, look at his record, look at his experience in the West, his fluency in English, all of this, [and] to see him as, in effect, a kind of Iranian Gorbachev—someone who is going to turn Iranian foreign policy on its head and someone who may even, in the name of promoting reform or change inside the Islamic Republic, precipitate, effectively, its implosion.  I think that’s a real misreading of who Rohani is

Rohani is a man who, if the West wants to deal with Iran on the basis of international law, if it wants to resolve the nuclear issue on the basis of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, recognizing Iran’s right to enrich uranium under international safeguards, Rohani is an ideal interlocutorBut if you’re looking at Rohani as someone, as I said, who is going to turn Iranian foreign policy on its head, he’s not that guy.” 

Flynt goes on to explain that this misreading of Rohani is likely to have a very negative impact on America’s already warped approach to diplomatic engagement with the Islamic Republic:   

“The temptation is going to be very strong to do with Rohani what American administrations tried to do with President Khatami when he was in office—basically, to see him potentially as an interlocutor who might give us what we want, and so try to deal with him and avoid dealing with the Supreme Leader, avoid dealing with other power centers.  That did not work.  The Obama administration tried it to some degree—it didn’t like Ahmadinejad, so it thought maybe we could engage the Supreme Leader directly and just ignore this elected president.  I don’t think that the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, liked that any better than President Ahmadinejad did.  I think it’s really important to recognize that this is a system.  It’s got multiple power centers in it; you can’t work on just one to leverage what you want out of the system.  You have to engage it as a system, and on an issue like the nuclear question or any of the major issues between the United States and Iran, decisions on the Iranian side will, by definition, be taken by consensus.  You will not be able to get just one guy to give you, somehow, the outcome you want.” 

Appearing on Russia Today a couple of days after Rohani’s inauguration, Hillary warned that continued American obduracy on the nuclear issue—obduracy fed by willful misreadings of Iranian strategy and decision-making as well as by longstanding U.S. imperial hubris—will preclude real diplomatic progress, see here:   

“It’s hard to see how they can meet in the middle.  The two key issues for the Islamic Republic of Iran, that I think are ensconced in international law, are that the United Sates recognize both its sovereign right and its treaty right to enrich uranium.  That’s something the United States has shown no evidence it is willing or able to do, the Obama administration and Congress. 

The other piece that’s critically important for the Islamic Republic is for the United States to ease, lift at least some of its sanctions that it has imposed on the Islamic Republic—and forced, or tried to coerce countries around the world to impose on the Islamic Republic of Iran.  That, too will be very, very difficult for President Obama to leverage, because most—I think nearly 60, 65 percent—of the sanctions imposed on Iran are now legislated, are now in U.S. law.  President Obama simply does not have the power to lift those sanctions without the acquiescence of Congress.” 

Hillary then identified the domestic political factors that President Obama would have to spend political capital to neutralize if he actually ascribed some priority to making progress on the Iranian nuclear issue:    

“There are three main areas that are problematic in Washington:  the pro-Israel constituencies, the neoconservative elements on the right, and what I would call the liberal imperialists.  [The liberal imperialists] don’t care so much about the nuclear program, but they are dead set against the political structure of the Islamic Republic—and so many of the sanctions that have been imposed from Washington, are not just about the nuclear program—they’re about Iran’s domestic politics.  That’s going to be a very difficult nut to crack.” 

As Hillary notes, “the Iranians are coming into this with open eyes, understanding the dynamics of the U.S. system.”  And, as we have pointed out before, there is mounting skepticism in Tehran that the United States, even during the presidency of Barack Hussein Obama, is prepared to deal with the Islamic Republic as an enduring and legitimate entity representing legitimate national interests

Against this backdrop, Rohani and his team are likely to use the next rounds of nuclear diplomacy with the United States and its partners as an opportunity to clarify Washington’s real intentions toward the Islamic Republic—to clarify those intentions for Iranians and for other countries:     

“They’re going to put forth as constructive and light a foot as possible—not so much because they really hope or think the United States is going to turn its colors overnight; the strategy here is to try to ease some of the pressure on other countries—on Germany, on England, on Russia, on China—to ease some of the pressure on some of these other countries in dealing with Iran.  Already you’ve seen the foreign minister of the UK come out and say that the Brits would be willing to have substantive discussions with the Iranians; the Germans have, too.  In Russia, too, President Putin is going to be meeting with President Rohani in September.  So already the strategy is paying off for the Iranians—even if it’s going to be very difficult to make movement here in Washington.” 

–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett

 

143 Responses to “Washington Ready to Repeat Past Mistakes in Nuclear Diplomacy with Iran; Tehran Thinks About a Plan B”

  1. Bussed-in Basiji says:

    Supreme Leader in a speech to officials on 11th Ramadhan (on khamenei.ir won’t let me post link) about talking to American officials:

    “The Americans are unreliable/not trustworthy, unreasonable and not honest in their interactions.”

    آمريكائى‌ها، هم غيرقابل اعتمادند، هم غير منطقى‌اند، هم در برخوردشان صادق نيستند

  2. Bussed-in Basiji says:

    All,

    Exhibit #1:

    James says:
    “Blah blah blah…marauding blacks…blah blah blah…”

    Instructions to the jury:

    “The jury can take the defendants steadfast refusal to honestly answer the question of knowing Ian Henderson CBE and his long history of executions, torture and imprisoning of human beings in Bahrain and other Persian Gulf nations and establishing a network of concentration camps and British backed death-squads in Kenya- as a “yes”.

    I rest my case.

  3. Bussed-in Basiji says:

    Instructions to the defendant:

    “Instead of posting on this forum, go bend over for your Najdi johns- for money.”

  4. James Canning says:

    Maybe the UK needs to lead the way, in negotiating with Iran.

  5. James Canning says:

    Bussed-In Basiji,

    I take it you admit you do not have any alternative programme to propose, that Britain could have followed in Kenya.

  6. James Canning says:

    Bussed-In Basiji,

    I also take it you concede at least 100,000 black civilians in Keya were killed by other blacks.

  7. fyi says:

    James Canning says:
    August 12, 2013 at 6:08 pm

    It is too late now; UK leadership’s role in Syria is denigrated across the political spectrum; that leadership is not capable of negotiating with any other state – specially Iran.

  8. Bussed-in Basiji says:

    James,

    You take it wrong.

    You still haven’t answered whether you know who Ian Henderson is and what he did in Bahrain all those years. Your refusal only discredits you.

    Stop posting on this forum you pathetic old racist.

  9. Empty says:

    James Canning,

    RE: “I take it you admit you do not have any alternative programme to propose, that Britain could have followed in Kenya.”

    Leaving Kenya immediately, not supporting any factions, and stopping instigations of various sorts would have all been excellent alternative plans for Britain to undertake. Don’t you agree?

  10. Empty says:

    James Canning,

    RE: “Maybe the UK needs to lead the way, in negotiating with Iran.”

    Though I had imagined a stiff upper lip, I somehow suspected that there must be a sense of humor in you somewhere. Good one! :)

  11. Sakineh Bagoom says:

    “Maybe the UK needs to lead the way, in negotiating with Iran.”

    That UK no longer exists. It is now nicknamed: Poodle.
    Get over your imperial past and see if you can find food for the Brits suffering.

  12. James Canning says:

    Empty,

    Do you actually think Britan should have simply withdrawn from Kenya, in 1952? Politically impossible in any event.

  13. James Canning says:

    Bussed-In Basiji,

    I told you I read the Daily Telegraph obituary of Ian Henderson earlier this year, and quoted from it.

  14. James Canning says:

    Bussed-In Basiji,

    Are you arguing that Britain’s use of contentration camps in Kenya was “racist”, but its use of concentration camps during the Boer War is irrelevant because in that instance those interned in the camps were white?

  15. James Canning says:

    The Financial Times today has an excellent brief report on Rohani’s selections for his cabinet.

  16. James Canning says:

    Sakineh,

    Daily Telegraph report July 31, 2013: “William Hague calls Iran to discuss restoring diplomatic relations”.

    What are chances John Kerry would “call Iran to discuss restoring diplomatic relations”? ZERO. Why? ISRAEL LOBBY.

  17. fyi says:

    All:

    Dr. Pollack on Syria (more war)

    http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2013/08/09%20military%20syria%20civil%20war%20us%20intervention%20pollack/08_pollack_syria.pdf

    That is why Axis Powers have failed and will continue to fail; all they have in store is war and more war.

  18. Karl.. says:

    James

    You really think Iran is that stupid that they will invite the same UK that have caused Iran so much ill for all these years?

    Its not up to Iran but for UK to change its behavior if it were sincere about improved relations.

  19. nico says:

    Karl.. says:
    August 13, 2013 at 2:50 pm

    Am I wrong or the Iran central bank ban was FIRST implemented in UK even before the US ?

    The issue is that UK is perfidious it is in their DNA.

    The UK are Iran fiercest enemy.
    Much more than the US.

    The UK are colonial scum.

  20. Rd. says:

    “There’s a temptation in the West to see Rohani’s election, …… as, in effect, a kind of Iranian Gorbachev “

    … and I can see the Obama administration delegating the bomb bomb McCain and Grahm to be the lead negotiators with IRI… I think it is becoming pathetically obvious to more and more people around the world, there are irresponsible juveniles in charge of DC…

  21. BiBiJon says:

    The problem appears not so much to reside to the real power of the “Israel lobby” but rather in the submissiveness of the [intimidated]. If the lobby cannot rely on their uncritical and vile support, they can easily refute because the lobby does not have real arguments. – See more at: http://mwcnews.net/focus/editorial/29675-israel-lobby-threat.html#sthash.oYrKeJUl.dpuf

  22. James Canning says:

    BiBiJon,

    Interesting piece you just linked, re: suppression of free speech in Germany, by the Israel lobby.

  23. James Canning says:

    Karl..,

    apparently some Iranian leaders think it was poor move by Iran to allow the sacking of the British embassy in Tehran. Both countries will benefit from normal realtions.

  24. Sineva says:

    Karl.. says:
    August 13, 2013 at 2:50 pm
    Well said,with “friends” like that..well I think iran is better off without that kind of “friend” and that goes for the rest of the western “friends” as well

  25. Karl.. says:

    James

    It wasnt Iran that sacked UK was it? It was UK that left themselves. And “apparently some brittish leaders think it was” bad to do so.

    “Britain was wrong to close Tehran embassy, says David Miliband”

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jan/31/david-miliband-iran-embassy-uk?CMP=twt_fd

  26. fyi says:

    Karl.. says:

    August 14, 2013 at 2:39 am

    Mr. James Canning is correct; there have been many other such unlawful acts in Iran against foreign and domestic targets instigated and supported by this or that faction.

    The factions ultimately care onoy about themselves; they have a primitive form of peasant cunning that they equate with intelligence.

  27. Liz says:

    I just wanted to remind everyone about the lies spread by Scott Lucas, Pak, and others for over 4 years about the presidential election results in 2009.

    TODAY ABBASS AKHOUNDI the current candidate for the Ministry of Housing and the deputy head of Mousavi’s campaign team 4 years ago made an important public statement in parliament. He was Mousavi’s representative in the Interior Ministry and in charge of 40,000 Mousavi monitors at the ballot boxes. HE STATED ON LIVE TV AND RADIO TODAY THAT 4 YEARS AGO HE EXPLICITLY POINTED OUT THAT THERE WAS NO FRAUD.

    http://www.jahannews.com/vdch–nxm23nvvd.tft2.html

    These people and their filthy green friends should go hide somewhere, but that will not happen.

  28. nico says:

    fyi says:
    August 14, 2013 at 9:23 am

    Do you mean like the many unlawfull and despictable acts of seditions from US and UK embassies all arround the world as proven time and again in latin america, ME and elsewhere ?

    Sure by now all US embasdies should be shut down in those countries.

    Well you are supporting the UK cut if diplomatic ties….
    Good to know.

  29. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    Thanks. I think the important thing now is for Iranian embassy in London and British embassy in Tehran to reopen.

  30. BiBiJon says:

    fyi says:
    August 14, 2013 at 9:23 am

    Just wait for that British cunning peasant to pull a fast one. ‘Make nice with us, and we’ll get the Saudis (who we spurred into anti-Iran frenzy) to stand down. See what a king maker we are.’

    Only a dim-witted peasant would fall for that. Saudis are imploding anyway, and UK should not take any credit for getting Saudis to calm down.

    http://rt.com/news/saudi-arabia-opposition-prince-374/

  31. Rd. says:

    BiBiJon says:

    ” Saudis are imploding anyway,”

    Add to that, Turkey is likely to turn around too.. with Egypt in turmoil for some time, SA and USA (match in heaven) busy planning for their honeymoon..

    “Turkey Reconsiders Support For Jabhat Al-Nusra”

    http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/08/turkey-considers-support-for-al-nusra.html

  32. Karl.. says:

    On Egypt

    So…where are Samantha Power these days? I thought she was against killing of civilians?

    She even wrote a book about the failture to act:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Problem_from_Hell:_America_and_the_Age_of_Genocide

    No of course, when allied forces to America commit the crime, there is no crime according to Power.

  33. kooshy says:

    Rd. says:
    August 14, 2013 at 4:01 pm

    I don’t think US can maintain to keep KSA stabilized without a military (Nasser, Sadat, Mubarak) ruled Egypt. I also think this was to undo the early Obama administration mistake that they now (since Kerry) are trying to correct with this recent military cope. I also think is too little too late, for some time to come Egypt will remain a bloody destabilized failed state, which consequentially will sink the KSA, Jordan and various mini gulf states to her east and west. Without a stabilized KSA all other regional western assets becomes unstable and fall, without KSA there is no more legs left to hold the western ME policy up.

    Back in 70’s there where 4 western pillars to keep ME stabilized as important western asset, Iran, KSA, Egypt, and Turkey, Iran is long gone Turkey has many issues including real strategic disputes with all her neighbors on all sides, Egypt just got an American cope that is not swallowing and will not swallow this time (even poor stupid ElBaradei just realized this and resigned, why would a “Noble” laureate like our own “ I don’t see no cope El Presidante ” accepts to be a member of a cope is beyond me), and KSA, like its American/western protectors thinks they can buy security and stabilization any time they write a check this didn’t work for Shah, didn’t work for the Amir of Qatar will not work for the Al Saud.

    After all thinking back about now famous, Carter’s 1978 stupid saying in Tehran just a few months before the revolution that toppled his most important American asset in the ME. When he called Iran “the island of stability” he was right only by a difference of a few decades. Iranians should thank god, and thanks to a people’s uprising that had chosen extraordinary guiding leaders for the revolution, wise leaders who were able to BALANCE both internal and external forces against the revolution and to check each other. As we all can see, today Iran is truly ME’s only island of stability.

    Payandeh Iran

  34. Rehmat says:

    American writer and blogger, Stephen Lendman, who knows American and Israeli Zionist mindset very well, summed-up American policy in the Middle East on June 24, 2013: “At issue is Syria, Hizbullah, Iran and Hamas. Israel wants all regional rivals removed. It’s part of its Greater Middle East agenda. It’s willing to wage regional war”.

    Dr. Kayhan Barzegar, a senior research fellow at Tehran’s Center for Strategic Research (CSR), says only a strong Iran will look after its national and interests of its regional allies (Hizbullah, Hamas, Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan) during talks with the United States.

    Many supporters of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, including myself – honestly believe that Tehran MUST acquire atleast one or two nuclear bombs as deterrent to put a ‘Duct Tape’ over warmongering Zionist mouths.

    http://rehmat1.com/2013/08/15/bibi-why-democrats-dont-trust-me-on-rouhani/

  35. Rehmat says:

    @BiBiJon

    According to British daily Guardian, Dr. Christopher Robert Hill, former US ambassador to Iraq (2009-2010) in a secret memo to US State Department, has claimed that the ‘Saudi royals’ are behind the on-going bloodshed in Shi’ite-controlled Iraq to counter Iranian influence in the country.

    http://rehmat1.com/2013/08/13/us-envoy-saudi-royals-sponsoring-violence-in-iraq/

  36. Persian Gulf says:

    fyi says:
    August 14, 2013 at 9:23 am

    I remember back in the day when I questioned the rationale of this action you claimed, referring to ambassador Bhadrakumar’s article (see here http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/ML01Ak02.html ), that it was a right thing to do. and it was a needed thing as well, mostly out of any other credible option in Iran’s hand. now you are saying this was a factional infighting.

    I think you are wrong on this issue. It was clearly a strategic decision and a right thing to do at that particular time. and it really worked. Britain was disarmed, propaganda wise, and couldn’t do a damn thing in response. Britain obviously doesn’t give a damn to Iran’s sovereignty, why should Iran care about Britain’s.

  37. kooshy says:

    “Israel plans to pay university students to defend it on social media sites”

    “JERUSALEM — Israel is looking to hire university students to post pro-Israel messages on social media networks — without needing to identify themselves as government-linked, officials said Wednesday.

    The Israeli prime minister’s office said in a statement that students on Israeli university campuses would receive full or partial scholarships to combat anti-Semitism and calls to boycott Israel online. It said students’ messages would parallel statements by government officials.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/israel-plans-to-pay-university-students-to-defend-it-on-social-media-sites/2013/08/14/ebf93416-04dc-11e3-bfc5-406b928603b2_story.html

    they have been doing that through Aipac for years with no success, Sassan and Pak come to mind , can’t work one can’t buy legitimacy the problem is that even the ones that are being paid to spread pro-Israel propaganda can’t be believing on what they are paid to do. At best possible future anti-Zionist students can get paid to finish school by saying and writing things they don’t know much about, nor care about much.

  38. kooshy says:

    Persian Gulf says:
    August 14, 2013 at 9:02 pm

    Is past the point that someone should care what Brits or the American think of Iran and Iranians, who gives a shit what this murderers that every day are killing innocents around the globe in cold blood think is right.

    Let the MFs think that Iranians shouldn’t have got angry and kicked them out and pissed on their queen’s picture, for next 100 years these AH are the one that need to apologize to Iranians. One can hope England can never come back to Iran. One even hopes these murderers can never leave their shty. fogged island .

  39. fyi says:

    Persian Gulf says:

    August 14, 2013 at 9:02 pm

    I was commenting on the actions of the Majlis and not on the storming of the UK Embassy.

    I agree that there is no need for Iran to maintain diplomatic relations with UK; she is not an independent international actor and she is not worth anything in the Supply Chain of Technology and Knowledge to Iran.

  40. Kathleen says:

    Hillary “humanitarian Imperialism” practiced by the Clinton administration. There are three Three main areas that are problematic in Washington… the pro Israel constituencies, the neoconservatives elements on the right,and what I call the LIBERAL IMPERIALIST” What an accurate term to call the Rachel Maddow’s, Chris Matthews, Lawrence O’Donnells of the US MSM and Senators Boxer, Feinstein, etc and so many so called liberal U.S. citizens who take a hard turn to the wrong when it comes to foreign policy

  41. Sineva says:

    fyi says:
    August 14, 2013 at 10:02 pm
    Agreed,there is no value in diplomatic relations with britain or most of the west for that matter

  42. Sineva says:

    James Canning says:
    August 13, 2013 at 5:47 pm
    What exactly would iran get out of it james?,the europeans have made it clear where they stand,they threw away billions of euros and decades of relations all on americas say so,why would iran ever want to have anything to do with treacherous fools like that

  43. BiBiJon says:

    Ray’s one of many takes: It’s genuineness, sincerity, and actual belief
    =====================================================================

    Yes folks. Hold your noses and read the latest BS by Ray joon.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/16/opinion/global/irans-clerics-remain-the-problem.html?_r=0

    He concludes “Ayatollah Khamenei and his allies who will always need an American nemesis to justify their ideology to themselves.”

    Ya, right! 73% showing up to cast a ballot doesn’t validate the foundations of a system of government; so Iran needs a nemesis, otherwise it could not win gold in boxing, basketball, or wrestling, and it sure could not put a few satellites in orbit so it can watch the turmoil gripping her neighboring countries on tv.

    And, wasn’t US behaving as a nemesis, according to Ray, was what brought Rouhani to power. But, hey, that was last week. Ray has to write it the way ‘they’ want to read it. And, that changes from week to week, from weak to weaker.

  44. James Canning says:

    Sineva,

    A considerable number of Iranians in the UK would like the Iranian embassy reopened.

    Iran would benefit from line of communication through British embassy in Tehran, and its own in London.

  45. Bussed-in Basiji says:

    Sineva,

    Maybe we’ll just wait until Scotland is independent next year and transfer our interest section for England to the new Iranian embassy in Edinburgh.

  46. Rehmat says:

    Sean Ali Stone, Hollywood actor a director, in a recent interview with RT’ Abby Martin has praised Ahmadinejad, Iranian people, Hizbullah and Islam.
    Watch my comments and the interview @

    http://rehmat1.com/2013/08/15/ali-stone-debunks-lies-about-iran-hizbullah-and-911/

  47. James Canning says:

    BiBiJon,

    Surely Takeyh is correct to say the possibility of a limited deal with Iran, by P5+1, should not be ruled out.

  48. BiBiJon says:

    James Canning says:
    August 15, 2013 at 2:47 pm

    1) The formulation is so belabored as to certify that the intended audience is utterly war-crazed neocons only. Whom else would you have to caution not to rule out the mere possibility of a mere limited deal? Only the war lusting neocons.

    2) Because of above, he is wrong. He and neocons have been wrong so often and so catastrophically that when one of them (Takeyh) waxes BS for the rest of them, then you assuredly will not lose money if you bet he is wrong, again. In other words, the mutual lack of trust between the antagonists is so deep, and the list of western policy failures in the region is so long that either no deal, or a grand bargain are the only possibilities.

  49. James Canning says:

    BiBiJon,

    Problem with your formulation is simply that the ISRAEL LOBBY will not allow a “grand bargain”. The need therefore automatically shifts to ways and means for a limited deal. At this time.

  50. James Canning says:

    Research from Knight Frank, the estate agent, found nearly three-quarters of new home sales in inner London went to foreign buyers in 2012. More than half were from Singapore, Hong Kong, China and Malaysia.”
    — Sunday Times (london), Aug. 4, 2013

  51. fyi says:

    BiBiJon says:
    August 15, 2013 at 3:24 pm

    Mr. Canning is correct that there is only a possibility of limited deal sometime in 2014.

    Even that has low probability of being realized.

    The fact is that just like Iran-Iraq War, Iran has been pushed too far; this time together with her allies.

    At the same time, Axis Powers have also gone into strategic cul-de-sac in the Near East; they have no strategic understanding with the only functioning state there.

    There is a witch’s brew there and they will have to drink it.

    But rest assured that they are also still decades away from retreating from their religious war on behalf of that Jewish Fantasy in Palestine.

  52. kooshy says:

    Iran’s Clerics Remain the Problem
    By RAY TAKEYH
    Published: August 15, 2013

    “But the Iranian revolution of 1979 introduced a regime unique in the modern Middle East. The Islamic Republic has a mission of redeeming the region for the forces of righteousness. Despite the costs and burdens, Persian Iran has struggled against a range of what it perceives to be iniquitous forces, particularly the United States and its allies. It sees itself as a vanguard state led by a dedicated cadre that will lead the subjugated masses toward justice and salvation. Anti-imperialism and anti-Zionism are the touchstones of its orthodoxy.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/16/opinion/global/irans-clerics-remain-the-problem.html?_r=1&

    I didn’t know being anti-Zionist and anti-imperialist both western created forms of racism is not good. If Ray’s knowledge of Iranian mentality is zero a big zero, firstly I am sure 99.9% of Iranians are anti Zionist israel as well as anti imperialist American and Europeans no matter how much they like western goods. Secondly and more importantly both these “anti-feelings” that this stupid so called Iran scholar don’t care to learn about) are deeply inspired deep down in shieh Islam from the time of Imam Ali on and yet to date no Iranian leader has tried to hide but almost on every speech of SL is a point emphasized on.

  53. kooshy says:

    Iran’s Clerics Remain the Problem
    By RAY TAKEYH
    Published: August 15, 2013

    “But the Iranian revolution of 1979 introduced a regime unique in the modern Middle East. “

    In this regard one can’t argue with Ray, that is because every prediction him and every ill-informed so called Iran scholar like him has so far predicted about Iran has become to be false and not materializing, but Ray-joon (Roosh Ziyadeh va- az Roo Nemierh) is not giving up and that’s why the American propaganda machine will continue to employ him.

  54. kooshy says:

    Four Days in Iran in August: Heat, Hijab and Hope

    Barbara Slavin
    August 15, 2013

    “This prevailing cynicism reflects the fact that ultimate power in the Islamic Republic of Iran lies with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and that Rouhani’s leash will be only as long as Khamenei allows. The man and woman-on-the-street comments also demonstrate the lack of popular support for the system as a whole and a sense of frustration that there is little ordinary Iranians can do to change it.”

    http://www.voanews.com/content/slavin-iran-column/1730578.html

    Well one wonders if what Barbara Slavin {a paid reporter for US state media) says is correct, then why did 73% of Iranians just a month ago participated to vote for the system they don’t support. If Barbara’s analysis is correct then one can also conclude the surveillance baby killer regime in Washington who employs Barbara Slavin and likes to write this kind of cabbage with less than 54% voter participation is even less liked and legitimate. I myself refused to vote for the grime in Washington that pays Barbara’s salary. Would Barbara dare to write that on her next ordered assigned write-up garbage?

  55. BiBiJon says:

    fyi says:
    August 15, 2013 at 8:06 pm

    “Mr. Canning is correct that there is only a possibility of limited deal sometime in 2014.”

    Mr Canning, aka 20% James, is wrong.

    A limited deal from Iran’s pov is an unnecessary concession, unless the end state is defined and guaranteed. If a deal is part of a larger strategic understanding then it is incorrect to call it ‘limited.’ If it is truly limited it won’t fool Iranians. If it is the harbinger of grand bargain, calling it ‘limited’, or Kentucky Fried Chicken, or any other name, won’t fool Israel-firsters.

    I think also Obama’s perspective rules out a limited deal because it will leave Iran a plethora of other avenues outside the ‘limited deal’ to consolidate her position. Also, I suspect Obama would not invite pro-Israeli opprobrium upon himself just for a ‘limited’ deal.

  56. Rehmat says:

    Canadian Israel Lobby says: “Stop antisemitism and support Israel.

    http://rehmat1.com/2013/08/16/canada-say-no-to-antisemitism-support-israel/

  57. Karl.. says:

    kooshy

    Why is it such focus on who have the most power in Iran by western journalists?

    Does the president in the US have 100% power over everyhing? Is he not dependent on the House and Congress? But there is no one saying, ‘ oh obama cant do this or that, because in the end congress and house of rep. have him “on a leash”‘.

    Apparently Slavin and alike cant accept that majority of iranians support the system.

  58. Jay says:

    fyi says:
    August 15, 2013 at 8:06 pm

    I am not sure if we disagree, but to be clear, and with respect to other’s comments regarding a “deal”….

    If by “deal” you mean some form of accommodation, then from the US viewpoint the only possibility of a deal is for Iran to give in to the US demands. I would put the chances of capitulation at zero.

    The US does not make “deals” with anyone – even Mr. Putin has learned this lesson!

    When reading US media and Mr. Takyeh’s article one should always look for the story that is not being told and the statements not being said. For example, last week Gen. Dempsey went to Israel. What the US media wrote about was “talk of Iran”, and syria, by Dempsey and Israel. However, Dempsey wen to Israel to discuss the impending massacre in Egypt.

    The real story behind what Mr. Takyeh has published in the biggest US government stenography newspaper is not Iran and the US. It is part of the steps needed in order to create a “new reality” – a narrative.

    A week after the election of Mr. Rohani, US officials concerned with the loss of their well-developed rhetorical tools used against Ahmadinejad and Iran, began canvassing Europe and Asia. Several planted stories, including Rohani’s “wound” comment were tested in the media. In a late July meeting between several State Department folks at Iran desk, and the usual crowd at newspapers and think-tanks, a few more strategies for justifying the continuing diktat to isolate Iran was discussed. The likes of Takyeh, Sanger, Slavin, etc. walked away with their marching orders!

    The narrative against the SL has legs – let’s propagate and intensify the narrative that Rohani is irrelevant and the SL is the problem. less than 48 hours later the British FS was testing the narrative – that is efficiency!

    20% or no 20%, enrichment or no enrichment, Hizbollah or no Hizbollah – the US will not accept anything short of capitulation and Iran will not capitulate. Status quo!

  59. Karl.. says:

    On sanctions.

    EU sanctions on Iran are made multiple times a year, but when it comes to Egypt ‘sanctions isnt suitable’. God these hypocrities..

    http://www.thestar.com.my/News/World/2013/08/16/EU-should-review-Egypt-programmes–Swedens-Bildt.aspx

  60. James Canning says:

    Karl..,

    Egypt does not give an impression of wanting to be able to build nukes quickly.

  61. James Canning says:

    Jay,

    Iran needs to make a deal with the Six Powers. US is but one of those powers. And these powers try to maintain unity in dealing with Iran, in effort to resolve nuclear dispute.

    If you think Russia and China have no concerns regarding Iran’s nuclear programme, you are simply badly mistaken.

  62. James Canning says:

    Karl..,

    Many people posting on this site note that Obama “cannot do this, or cannot do that” due to Israel lobby, US Congress, etc etc etc etc. Obama’s own White House would not allow him to meet with Putin, due to Snowden affair.

  63. James Canning says:

    BiBiJon,

    My view is that communications between Iranian leaders and American leaders must go through third parties. So, US assurances re “grand bargain” would have to be made by British, Swiss, or other diplomats acting for the US. Why? Israel lobby.

    Iran needs to work around that lobby. So does the US.

  64. Karl.. says:

    James

    August 16, 2013 at 1:24 pm

    Are you ironic or something? Where did I even say the word nuke and Egypt in the same sentence?

  65. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Special appearance…

    US Joint Chiefs Chair: Military Options Against Iran ‘Better’ Than a Year Ago
    http://news.antiwar.com/2013/08/15/us-joint-chiefs-chair-military-options-against-iran-better-than-a-year-ago/

  66. James Canning says:

    Karl..,

    You wondered why sanctions were not being imposed on Egypt. Or, that is the impression I got from your post.

  67. James Canning says:

    R S Hack,

    I think the US “trains and plans” for a possible attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, but not for an “invasion”.

  68. Karl.. says:

    James

    Yes? Have you missed what have happend in Egypt past week?

  69. Karl.. says:

    Rsh

    Not surprising, just like these threats of war the sanctions past week prove US dont want peace with Iran.

  70. BiBiJon says:

    Watch Zarif’s confirmation speech. Anyone know of there’s a text/translation?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPY_jXRrMZM

  71. Jay says:

    James Canning says:
    August 16, 2013 at 1:26 pm

    James, your comment is your usual “completely unrelated and irrelevant”. Seriously, please read first!

  72. James Canning says:

    Jay,

    I read your comment carefully.

    You appear to argue that the P5+1 are totally under control of the US. So Iran cannot make a deal.

    I think you are mistaken.

  73. Jay says:

    James Canning says:
    August 16, 2013 at 6:40 pm

    Where in my comments I say “that the P5+1 are totally under the control of the US…”?

    Seriously, please read! Or, show me what you have stated (above) in my statement.

  74. Karl.. says:

    James
    August 16, 2013 at 6:40 pm

    He did not appear to say that but p5+1 is under control of the US is a fact, just like the Iraq process/sanctions were driven by the US in the 90s.

  75. nico says:

    James Canning says:
    August 16, 2013 at 6:40 pm

    “You appear to argue that the P5+1 are totally under control of the US. So Iran cannot make a deal.I think you are mistaken.”

    An amazing feature of this site is the utter level of idiocy and irrelevance of Mr Canning.

    1 – 90% of the “sanctions” (could it even be called sanctions ?) Are unilateral ones imposed by the west.
    2 – Russia and China made it clear they will not authorize additional UNSC sanctions.
    3 – it has been made clear time and again on this site and elsewhere that the so called sanctions voted by the US representatives where related to the nuclear issue, AND terrorism and support for terrorism AND human rights.
    4 – while it is clear that the main source of terrorism in the region is KSA supported by the US themselves.
    5 – while it is clear that the main sources of proliferation in the region are Israel, Pak, India and the US themselves xith their nukes stored in their bases like in Turkey or Diego Garcia and much likely in their PG bases and fleet.
    6 – all those countries are somehow supported by the US while they are in breach or out of international laws ans norms.
    7 – thus it is clear that the nuclear issue is fabricated and political. 100% driven by the US.

    Mr Canning what are your facts ?
    Whar logically lead you to your conclusions ?
    You have no logic and your “squirt” posts are supported by no facts.

    You are a coward and a sophist.
    Only lies out of your brainwashed mind by the FT propaganda is posted here.

    Disgusting idiocies and sophistry.

  76. nico says:

    http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13920526000592

    “The Indian oil tanker, MT Desh Shanti, which was intercepted by the Iranian Navy as it was carrying Iraqi oil through the Persian Gulf is in the custody of Hormozgan Ports and Maritime Office, a senior official said, reiterating that the vessel should compensate through its protection and indemnity (P&I) insurance coverage for the pollution it has caused.”

    Interesting and important development.
    It seems Iran is making a point that by being financially embargoed Iran might legally deny access to its territorial water and the straight of hormuz to ships unvovered by P&I insurance duly rehistered and refusing to indemnify Iran.

    Consequently ALL vessels threadind in Iran territorial water would need to have an domestic Iranian insurance civerage and Iran dould need to be oaud fir that.. with foreign currencies…

    That is a strong signal from Iran that the western embargoing and economic war could escalate easily…
    With legality being on Iran side.

  77. nico says:

    Incidentally western P&I insurers would be barred to cover ANY tankers sailing through Iran territorial waters.
    As tankers would be obliged to have insurance accepting to deal with Iran

    HUGE loss for western insurers monopoly OR unravelling of the sanctions.

    Smart move.

  78. Loftali says:

    I think Ms. Leverett has invented a narrative against which to argue. The preponderance of analysis in the West does not present Mr. Rohani as someone who will turn Iranian foreign policy on its head.

    BUT he does have influence in the circles of power – something which Ahmadinejad lacked – and he may be able to overcome skepticism and resistance within those circles to reaching an agreement with the West – an agreement that will have to recognize Iran’s nuclear rights.

    Additionally, Rohani presents a much kinder, gentler face to the West. There may not be a significant shift in Iran’s nuclear red lines, but image counts for a lot and will help ease public apprehension in the U.S. about dealing with Iran.

    Still, the constituency demanding that the U.S. view Iran’s leadership as bent on building a nuclear weapon and impossible to reason with is very strong and there is no significant groundswell of support among politicians or the public for better relations. It’s difficult to be hopeful.

  79. James Canning says:

    Nico,

    You apparently are not even aware the Financial Times says the West must accept Iranian enrichment to low levels, in order for a deal to be achievable.

    What is the “propaganda” problem with this position, as you see it?

    You apparently think Iran should not try to nmake a deal with P5+1. The people of Iran are lucky you are not in control of Iranian foreign policy.

  80. nico says:

    James Canning says:
    August 17, 2013 at 1:50 pm

    Laughable.

    Nice sophistic technics of yours.
    I was answering to your claim about the enemity of the US and your BS about the P5+1, which following your comments is not related to the US only but to some kind of cohesion with China and Russia.

    And now you jump to another unrelated subject.

    COWARD.

    Not enough virility to truly answer my challange, isn’t it ?

  81. James Canning says:

    Nico,

    How many times have I said the ISRAEL LOBBY will not allow a “grand bargain” between the US and Iran?

    Iran needs to work around the ISRAEL LOBBY (and its numerous stooges in the US Congress, and inside the White House for that matter).

    If Iran is unable to make a deal with P5+1, and Iran continues to stockpile etc etc, I think Iran will in effect be demanding that Obama blockade Iranian oil exports.

  82. James Canning says:

    Nico,

    You appear to be trying to suggest Russia and China would not mind if Iran builds nukes. You are badly mistaken. Full stop.

  83. James Canning says:

    Karl..,

    White House officials conceded to the Financial Times that they did not allow the P5+1 to make a reasonable offer to Iran, in 2012. Their explanation: Obama needed to get past the 2012 elections in the US.

    If you want to argue this demonstrates the US “controls” the P5+1, fine. I think you are mistaken, but obviously I agree the excessive power of the ISRAEL LOBBY is a problem the other five powers are saddled with.

  84. James Canning says:

    Jay,

    You wrote: “the US will not accept anything from Iran short of capitulation”. Correct? And Iran is negotiating with P5+1. Correct?

    So, according to you, the P5+1 will not make a deal with Iran even if Iran stops all enrichment of uranium. Correct?

  85. Karl.. says:

    James

    Elaborate why Iam misstaken that P5+1 is under control of the US.

  86. James Canning says:

    “JFK was regularly out in front of his advisers in articulating what might go wrong if military force was used as an early option rather than, as he believed, an option of last resort, and how such action, if taken, could escalate into a disaster.”
    – – James Blight, writing in the New Statesman 9-15 Aug. 2013

  87. Persian Gulf says:

    BiBiJon says:
    August 16, 2013 at 4:46 pm

    ظاهرا با انتخاب اکثریت وزرای پیشنهادی آقایون به اهدافشون رسیدن.
    انتخاب زنگنه اتفاقا نشونه ضعف مدیریتی چنین کسی. یعنی تو بیش از 20 سال وزرات ایشون 5 نفر از زیر دستانشون نتونستند برای پست وزارت تربیت بشند؟

    یا ظریف با گرفتن دکترای از راه دور (که واقعا برای من سواله چطور از یک دانشگاه معتبر میشه اینو گرفت) برمیگرده میگه دیگه جای آزمایش و خطا نیست. خودش در دهه بیست زندگیش یا کاردار ایران بوده یا مشاور کنسولگری در حساسترین کشور دنیا برای ایران، اونوقت به نسلهای جدیدتر میگه بی تجربه. یا این علوم سیاسی یه چیز آبکی هست که میشه دکترای از راه دور گرفت در حالی که کار دایم داره طرف و ادعای کاردرستی هم کرد، یا ایشون نابغه بی بدیل هستند که نسلهای (خنگ) ما قابلیت ارایه حتی یک نفر در حد و اندازه های ایشون رو نداره. حرف از تدریس کتابش میزنه یکی ندونه فکر می کنه یه مشت چرندیات رو به عنوان کتاب چاپ کردن حالا چی هست.

  88. James Canning says:

    Karl..,

    US does not “control” P5+1, and obviously the US does not “control” Russia or China.

    But Obama did block any good offer by P5+1 to Iran, in year leading up to US elections in November 2012. For domestic political reasons, obviously.

  89. James Canning says:

    “Unlike JFK, LBJ caved in to his inherited hawks time and again as he Americanised the conflict in Vietnam.”
    New Statesman piece by James Blight, 9-15 Aug. 2013

  90. Karl.. says:

    James

    I said elaborate, now you just said the same thing but with 3-4 more words. Again how is US not controlling the course of the p5+1?

  91. fyi says:

    James Canning says:
    August 17, 2013 at 3:45 pm

    As part of that, US will have to occupy parts of the Iranian territory indefinitely; around the Straits of Hormuz as well as around the Shat Al Arab water way to guarantee oil flows from Iraq.

    She won’t do it – that much is certain.

  92. fyi says:

    Persian Gulf says:
    August 17, 2013 at 6:57 pm

    In fact, in many many US entities – private or public – it is expected for a Leader to groom candidates that could eventually replace him – not everywhere and not always but in many cases.

    US Government, on the other hand, is entirely different – General Dempsey, for example, is a fluke.

    Americans can no longer promote capable people in their political system; they send the capable to (Academic, Think-Thank) Exile.

  93. Empty says:

    fyi,

    RE: “Americans can no longer promote capable people in their political system; they send the capable to (Academic, Think-Thank) Exile.”

    For that purpose, Iran has “Shoray_e Tashkhis_e Maslahat_e Nezam”.

  94. Empty says:

    Think tank….

  95. fyi says:

    Empty says:
    August 17, 2013 at 10:14 pm

    No, that one is dedicated to abrogating Sharia when necessary.

  96. Karl.. says:

    Apparently “Going to Tehran” book have got a new sub title.

    Going to Tehran: Why America Must Accept the Islamic Republic of Iran
    http://www.amazon.com/Going-Tehran-America-Islamic-Republic/dp/1250043530/ref=zg_bsnr_5571272011_18/177-9154419-8022551

    old one: “Why the United States Must Come to Terms with the Islamic Republic of Iran”

    Is this the second edition?

  97. Empty says:

    Thank you, Karl, for the link to the Leveretts’ book (new edition). A nice play with graphics: a falling US star and rising Iranian crescents with an immediate crash in mid-air!

  98. James Canning says:

    Karl..,

    Yes, “must accept” is better phrasing for what the US obviously needs to do. Obviously. Even if Bibi Netanyahu objects.

  99. Pirouz says:

    Paperback edition. Good to see.

  100. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    Think tanks and academia act as holding pens for many of those who have held positions in prior administrations and perhaps hope for future positions.

  101. James Canning says:

    Karl..,

    I think both Russia and China accepted Obama’s need to prevent any decent offer to Iran from the P5+1, in the year prior to US elections in Nov. 2012.

    This excuse does not obtain now, obviously.

  102. Rehmat says:

    In April 2013, the Pentagon reported that by 2015, Iran with the help of China and North Korea would be able to develop a long-range (intercontinental) ballistic missile capable of reaching United States.

    Last month, Israeli daily The Jerusalem Post picked-up Pentagon’s two month old report and called it “a report from US intelligence agencies”. This Israeli “holy revelation” was reported by hundreds of pro-Israel websites to scare the hell out of Americans. One wonders, why Tehran needs an intercontinental ballistic missile when it can strike Israel and American military bases (Qatar, Jordan, Afghanistan, Azerbiajan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, etc.) in the region with its existing medium range (1,800 km) missiles?

    The new Pentagon study can be used against the American people to instill fear that a nuclear armed Iran can strike the United States territory if the United States, NATO and Israel do not act immediately to prevent such a disaster.

    The tail never stops wagging the dog, eh!

    http://rehmat1.com/2013/07/14/iranian-ballistic-missiles-against-us/

  103. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    You think Iran would want to bring down the central gov’t of Iraq, in event of hostilities in the Gulf? That would benefit Iran somehow, in your view?

  104. masoud says:

    Get ready for it:

    Iran faces one-third budget shortfall: Report

    Jahangiri was quoted by the ISNA news agency as saying on Sunday that officials told him that “more than one third of the budget is unrealistic” and it must be cut to about $45 billion.

    “We face a serious budget shortfall,” he said.

    Another Rouhani aide, Mohammad Baqer Nobakht, told state television on Saturday night that za revised budget would be presented to Iran’s parliament by mid-September.

    “If the 2013-2014 budget law is revised, the government and the country will not face a budget shortfall and resulting inflation,” Nobakht said, according to the Mehr news agency.

    http://m.economictimes.com/news/international-business/iran-faces-one-third-budget-shortfall-report/articleshow/21899823.cms

  105. Sakineh Bagoom says:

    It is high time for the Poodle to pay up for following her master in the economic warfare against Iran. How many more countries to follow?
    http://tehrantimes.com/economy-and-business/110103-mellat-bank-to-make-legal-claim-of-p500m-against-britain-for-loss-of-business-

  106. James Canning says:

    Sakineh,

    Interesting piece, and interesting situation.

  107. Jay says:

    James Canning says:
    August 17, 2013 at 3:54 pm

    James, this is what you wrote:
    —>
    Jay,

    You wrote: “the US will not accept anything from Iran short of capitulation”. Correct? And Iran is negotiating with P5+1. Correct?

    So, according to you, the P5+1 will not make a deal with Iran even if Iran stops all enrichment of uranium. Correct?
    —<

    James,

    according to your own writing, you are equating US and P5+1. I said "US will not accept…" and you equated to "P5+1 will not make a deal..". So you are admitting that UK and the rest of P5+1 are irrelevant?

    I cannot be responsible for your bunny leaps and hops of unsubstantiated inference! Perhaps you can come up with something better to back up what you accused me of? Perhaps not?

  108. fyi says:

    James Canning says:
    August 18, 2013 at 12:47 pm

    When war starts, all bets are off.

    Do you think EU leaders will fly to Tehran and pledge to sanction the United States in the event of yet another war of choice by the United States?

    Do you Japan, China, South Africa, Brazil, India, Russia could do likewise?

    I think not; when war is joined, the aim of the Iranians will be to inflict maximum pain on the US, and her allies.

    Americans will be there for decades, like Israel in South Lebanon, fighting a war which Iranians will be waging to liberate their Occupied Territories.

  109. fyi says:

    Jay says:
    August 18, 2013 at 2:50 pm

    Mr. Canning, like Dr. Mousavian, Dr. Afrasiabi, Ambassador Pickering and others still think that a nuclear deal is in the realm of both possibility and probability.

    I think not.

  110. fyi says:

    masoud says:
    August 18, 2013 at 1:34 pm

    This year, ending in March 21, will be the worst year for Iran economically.

    For this reason it also was to be the year for Axis Powers to extract concessions from Iran without giving anything away; thus their keenness to get a deal now.

    After this year, Iranian economy will resume its growth and overtime adjust to the sanctions.

    I expect that Iranians will be selling the bulk of their oil on the spot market over the coming decades; the strategy of positioning oneself as a reliable supplier to China, Japan, India, Korea, South Africa has proven to be unsupportable strategically.

    [The rest of the oil will be sent up into petro-chemical industries etc.]

    I do not sense any panic or dis-orientation in Iran; among Iranian leaders or population.

    Considering everything; they are doing well; prevailing is Syria (supporting their allies), helping them in Iraq, and coping with the economic siege against Iran – all the time playing their long game in Afghanistan.

    It is indeed fortunate for Iran to have enemies such as Axis Powers, lest Iran be like Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Indonesia and other such places ruled by Emotion and not Reason.

  111. kooshy says:

    What is problematic and frankly bothersome on the new (linked above by fyi) and past articles and approaches by ambassador Pickering and co. is that in his articles and presentations he always opens as two countries negotiating on bases of equality and mutual respect etc. etc. but his literature shows that even he who recommends negotiations on these bases doesn’t believe in mutual respect, unfortunately his tone is very much on par with American execiptionalism that he is accustomed to. Pickering’s literature is very much on par with the government for years he worked for and made foreign policy, if he says he wants mutual respect and honest negotiation his disrespect for the letter of international law and the tone of his literature shows that he only says this as a tactical approach and not a strategic necessity that US is yet ready to pay the price to achieve.

    If Ambassador Pickering and US are interested and as some argue to keep a foothold in ME they badly need a rapprochement with Iran, they firstly would need to step down the ladder of American exceptionalism and see themselves as equals to everyone else, like what SL said a few days back (Americans are not honest, trustworthy, etc.) they need to change their tone and literature if they really mean mutual respect and equality.

  112. Jay says:

    Jay says:
    August 18, 2013 at 2:50 pm

    James,

    to be clear about my earlier post, I do equate UK with a subservient power to US. And, I do think that the UK, similar to her big brother, has little respect for international norms and agreements the moment they do not suit her purposes.

    Just for entertainment, the following quote from Glen’s article in the Guardian is,…, well, appropriate. Note particularly “The UK puppets and their owners in the US…”!

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/18/david-miranda-detained-uk-nsa

    “But to start detaining the family members and loved ones of journalists is simply despotic. Even the Mafia had ethical rules against targeting the family members of people they felt threatened by. But the UK puppets and their owners in the US national security state obviously are unconstrained by even those minimal scruples.”

  113. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    Your assumption Iran can fail to make a deal with P5+1 and expect to export oil for years to come, is simply mistaken. In my view. Since “grand bargain” will not be alowed by Israel lobby, a limited deal by definition is essential. For Iran. Israel and the Israel lobby want NO DEAL.

  114. fyi says:

    James Canning says:
    August 18, 2013 at 6:21 pm

    The only strategic deal is this:

    “Remove EU sanctions for our help in Afghanistan in 2014 and after.”

    Now, this deal may be clothed in the banalities of a “Nuclear Deal” but that is all there is.

    I advise you to advise your interlocutors of this – and further that they have “Lost the Iranian People”.

  115. fyi says:

    kooshy says:
    August 18, 2013 at 5:49 pm

    US strategic aim is the destruction of Iranian power for multiple and overlapping reasons.

    It is beyond their reach without US of WMD in Iran; their aim now is to wither Iran through siege war – like all those sieges prior to the invention of cannons.

    That game is also over as Iranians have withstood their attacks; on themselves as well as on their allies in Syria and in Iraq.

    Let us see if US leaders are willing to make a strategic deal over Afghanistan in 2014 and cover it under the Nuclear deal.

    We would know by April of 2014.

  116. masoud says:

    fyi says:
    August 18, 2013 at 3:37 pm

    This has nothing to do with the international situation. It’s nothing less than a fullout attack on his predecesors support base.

  117. Sakineh Bagoom says:

    Rule of law used to count for something in UK. The country of Magna Carta is now reduced to this. Intimidation and coercion.
    Why? Because the Poodle is following the master.

    “Even the Mafia had ethical rules against targeting the family members of people they felt threatened by. But the UK puppets and their owners in the US national security state obviously are unconstrained by even those minimal scruples.”

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/18/david-miranda-detained-uk-nsa

  118. Jay says:

    Sakineh Bagoom says:
    August 18, 2013 at 9:55 pm

    Interesting that we picked up on the same line of the Guardian piece (see my post above).

    What is lower than an unscrupulous thug?!

  119. kooshy says:

    In light of US/UK rouge act of detaining and questioning Mr. Greenwald’s partner David Miranda, for sake of law and freedom it is imperative that free people be informed and encouraged to avoid travelling on US/UK owned and based airlines and to avoid transiting in these rouge states.

  120. Jay says:

    The latest release of information on the 1953 coup by the CIA is a good read. Although there is perhaps little new information, many of the details no longer need be surmised – they are in black and white.

    That MI6/CIA operated jointly. That they hand picked the coup leaders. They hand picked the post coup collaborators at the highest levels. Greed was the motive, and Iranians paid the price with blood and tears.

    Rogue acts by US/UK continue to this day as evidenced by the latest episode I posted above. Of course, it is under better mass media management – allowing it to fool more people more of the time! But, these rogue acts have a limited lifespan even when they are marketed brilliantly.

  121. BiBiJon says:

    Past mistakes? what’s “past” about them mistakes, Timothy Lange?
    ============================================================

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/18/1231387/-An-unhappy-60th-birthday-The-CIA-coup-of-1953-still-resonates-in-Iran-Operation-Ajax-remembered

    Meteor Blades (Timothy Lange) writes:

    “Iran’s governance today might be more authentically democratic instead of the crabbed version large portions of the Iranian people oppose. Instead, one can draw a straight line from that CIA coup 60 years ago to the government that now alternates between hard-liners and reformers, all of them hamstrung by the extensive authority of the Supreme Leader of the Assembly of Experts, currently the 74-year-old Ali Hosseini Khamenei, who has ruled since 1989.”

    Note to Tim:
    ———-

    Leave Iran alone. SL has not “ruled” Iran, he has served the nation at the pleasure of the electorate whose representatives in the assembly of experts have the constitutional authority to impeach and remove the SL from office.

    ‘Alternating between hardliners and reformers’ is supposed to show Timothy has learned his lessons from misrepresenting/demonizing Iran’s politics of 60 years ago? Don’t you mean Iran’s participatory system of government with universal suffrage has two politically dominant wings which alternate in power at the whim of the majority of the electorate. I mean Tim, have you not seen 2-party politics in France, UK, US, and indeed every country in the ‘Western world’ also hamstrung by supreme courts, corporate interests, MIC, and billionaire Zionists?

    So when Tim waxes authentic about democracy, watch out! He may well be another blood-thirsty liberal interventionist. Look for sleight of hand, weasel phrases: crabbed? large portions oppose? By which Tim means clear majorities support.

  122. James Canning says:

    Jay,

    You are overlooking the “fear factor”, that helped to bring about the UK/US overthrow of Mossadegh.

    “Greed” did of course play a role.

    Ahmadinejad said the events of 1953 were “water under the bridge”.

  123. James Canning says:

    Jay,

    The “fear factor” also played a role in bringing about the UK/US overthrow of Mossadegh.

  124. James Canning says:

    Sakineh,

    Didn’t you note Iran is seeking many hundreds of millions of pounds in damages, in UK courts? Rule of law?

  125. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    Iran works with other countries in order to influence events in Afghanstan, and Iran will continue to do so.

    The US, of course, should have been cooperating with Iran, in interests of greater stability in Afghanstan.

    A partial deal between Iran and P5+1 would help.

  126. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    August 19, 2013 at 1:31 pm

    You do not seem to grasp the view from Tehran; they do not think they need a deal.

  127. nico says:

    “James Canning says:
    August 19, 2013 at 1:25 pm
    Jay,The “fear factor” also played a role in bringing about the UK/US overthrow of Mossadegh.”

    Laughable.
    The anglo saxon are the worst of colonial scums.
    And UK top them all by far, far, far.

    Israel is only the child of UK and is inspired by UK behaviours and deeds.
    And the Anglo American see Israel as their legitimate and spoiled child trying to imitate its parents.
    Sure UK is proud of Israel.

    Want an example ?

    Extermination of aborigenal people in Tasmania.

    The last tasmanian native speaker died in 1870 or so.
    Her people was genocided by UK settlers. (Foes that remind you some project in the ME ?)
    And her skeleton was exposed in a museum until late in the 20th century.

    http://www.antoranz.net/CURIOSA/ZBIOR2/C0208/21-QZC01093-Truganini-muzeum.jpg

    For more detail just google Truganini.
    You will find out that the UK humanists promised the natives protection and safety until final extermination.
    Perifidy ?
    Satanic ?

    You to judge.

    Sure the anglo saxon be it in Northern America and elsewhere know what they are speaking about when the discuss such thing as “wipe off the map”.
    And by mind projection they think everyone is like them.

    Who is mad and satanic ?
    Israel or the Anglo parents ?

    You to make your own opinion.

    The UK are the worst modern time scelerates.
    Way beyond and above Nazi Germany.

    No deal with Anglo American should be clinched ever in a position of weakness or dependency.

    At the end of the day what is needed is for the Anglo American to be kicked out of the region if ME countries want to experience true progress.

    And please stop bragging about zionists.
    It is Anglo American familly business.

  128. James Canning says:

    Nico,

    Iran needs to make a deal that is accepted by UK, US, France. And Russia, Germany, China.

    Partial deal to me is only realistic way forward.

    Your apparent belief Iran could go on for years and years without exporting oil by sea, is simply wrong, in my view.

  129. James Canning says:

    Nico,

    You appear to be unaware that John Foster Dulles was anti-British.

  130. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    Are you suggesting Iranian leaders think Iran can get by without exporting oil by sea, for years to come? (In event of no deeal with P5+1)

  131. nico says:

    James Canning says:
    August 19, 2013 at 3:04 pm
    “Nico,Iran needs to make a deal that is accepted by UK, US, France. And Russia, Germany, China.”

    There will be no SIGNIFICANT deal.
    At best there will be a little nothing just for the US to avoid a war they know they will lose.
    The US are in their way toward unsignificance in the ME.

    The issue is that it is the direction of History.
    With or without military interventions and bases the time of the Anglo dominated world is at its dawn.

    The only remaining important question is the way it will be achieved.
    With dignity and peacefully or with crimes and more crimes.

    Well we have the answer for more than 20 years now.

    All that to try to achieve few more years of dominance.

    Well, the end does not justify the means.
    Now less than ever.

    The US policies are like Obama.
    Pathetic.

  132. Rd. says:

    James Canning says:

    “Are you suggesting Iranian leaders think Iran can get by without exporting oil by sea”

    Are you suggesting us/uk are going to suck up all the sea waters just to keep Iran from exporting by sea? Good luck with the heart burn…

  133. James Canning says:

    Rd.,

    I take it you think the US could not impose a blockade. I fear you are simply badly mistaken.

  134. James Canning says:

    Nico,

    Hostilities in the Gulf would cause great damage to the interests of many countries. Your confidence Iran’s interests would benefit is mistaken.

  135. James Canning says:

    Nico,

    There were very few well-informed people in Britain and American who did not fear war with the Soviet Union, back in 1953.

    Fear was an important factor in the overthrow of Mossadegh.

  136. James Canning says:

    Nico,

    How many years did Iran in effect prolong the war with Iraq? Because Iranian leaders mistakenly thought Iran could win the war.

  137. Sakineh Bagoom says:

    “Didn’t you note Iran is seeking many hundreds of millions of pounds in damages, in UK courts? Rule of law?”

    I was being ironical as they say. What do you think is the likelihood of Iran recouping her money? Over a billion dollars is still owed to Iran by Eurodif. Will she ever get that back?
    What is the likelihood of US returning over 12 billion owed to Iran?
    It is high time that this criminal cabal be held accountable for their crimes.
    Do you know of one person that went to jail for the financial melt down in US?
    Rule of law. Psshhh.

  138. Sineva says:

    James Canning says:
    August 19, 2013 at 6:14 pm
    You fight wars to win james and if iran had not bled saddam white and bankrupted him he would without a doubt still have been in power today most likely with a nuclear arsenal to back him up

  139. James Canning says:

    Sakineh,

    My understanding is that the US Justice Dept. has brought only two criminal prosecutions arsing from all the financial fraud, other wheeling and dealing etc, that brought on the near-meltdown. One conviction.

    Graydon Carter has an excellent letter on this subject in September issue of Vanity Fair magazine. (vf.com)

    I don not know if Iran will succeed on its claims in British courts. Some success so far.

  140. James Canning says:

    Arising from all the financial fraud etc

  141. James Canning says:

    Sineva,

    While I do not think Iraq would have been allowed to build nukes, there was a risk of that, and if Iran prevented it, this of course is a good thing.