Iran

Post Reply
AzariLoveIran

Re: The Iran Thread

Post by AzariLoveIran »

.

VOA : Asians Resist Iran Oil Cut

.

Several Asian countries are expressing an unwillingness to join the United States and Europe Union in blocking oil imports from Iran in order to pressure Tehran over its disputed nuclear program.

Indian Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee has said his country cannot do without Iranian oil and will not be cutting its Iranian imports despite other countries' efforts to punish Tehran for its controversial nuclear activities.

Mukherjee was speaking during a visit to Chicago in the United States, which has led a Western effort to boycott Iranian oil in response to continuing concerns about Tehran's nuclear efforts and alleged rights abuses.

"You know Iran is an important supplier of petroleum crude," Mukherjee said. "We import around 105 million tons of crude per year. It is increasing. The last import last year was 105-106 million tons imported. Iran contributes substantially."

He acknowledged that countries like Saudi Arabia and Nigeria contribute as well, "But Iran contributes substantially and it is not possible for India to take any decision to reduce the import from Iran drastically."

India is the world's fourth-largest oil consumer. It gets 12 percent of its oil from Iran.

South Korean Finance Minister Bahk Jae-wan said Seoul is talking to Washington about the sanctions, but that he expects such talks to "take quite a bit of time."

South Korea imports about 10 percent of its oil from Iran.

China, the biggest world customer for Iranian oil, has rejected calls for any new sanctions against Tehran.

.

.
AzariLoveIran

Re: The Iran Thread

Post by AzariLoveIran »

.

-fhi3pjTC7k

.

Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei says Iran will stand by and support any nation or group that chooses to stand up to Israel.

We will continue to support any nation or group that fights or confronts the Zionist regime of Israel and we are not afraid of saying this, Ayatollah Khamenei said in the Friday prayers sermons in Tehran.

The Leader rejected Iran's interference in the affairs of regional countries, including Bahrain, and said Iran only had a role in the fight against Israel during the 33-day war Israeli war on Lebanon and Tel Aviv's 22-day war against Gaza which both resulted in the Zionist regime's defeat.

Addressing the Muslim nations of the region in the second sermon of the Friday Prayers in Tehran, Ayatollah Khamenei said as a result of the Islamic Awakening in the Middle East and North Africa the people's voice has been heard for the first time and all revolutionary countries have voted in favor of Muslim figures while rejecting Zionism and dictators.

.

Rhubarb, now you in ZugZwang

reminds me of Tuco

VUslGSoEH8I


.
AzariLoveIran

Re: The Iran Thread

Post by AzariLoveIran »

.



"Defense & Foreign Affairs" (Vol. XXX, no. 4) dated Jan. 25, 2012


Ardeshir Zahedi & Henry Kissinger

.

Two former top diplomats take a stand against war

WorldTribune.com

By Sheda Vasseghi, FreePressers.com

The following is based on recent statements by Amb. Ardeshir Zahedi, former foreign minister and and the last ambassador of the Shah in Washington, and Dr. Assad Homayoun, former minister at the Iranian Embassy in Washington.

“I have come to believe that Israel will indeed strike Iran in 2012.”

This is the profound conclusion of a well-documented article by political analyst Ronen Bergman published recently in The New York Times.

The hype over Iran and its future is creeping ever so closely to “a point of no return.” The news media have been obsessing over the Islamic Republic regime for months. No sooner have Americans ended their involvement in Iraq and looked for solutions in Afghanistan while at home facing dire domestic economic woes than they are bombarded with a not-so subliminal message of another military campaign which could be the Big One !

American policymakers made a huge mistake 33 years ago in 1979 in their moral support of the idea that an Islamic regime in Iran would block former Soviet communist expansionism and keep the Free World safe.

After 33 years, both Americans and Iranians have learned that an Islamic regime following Sharia laws is no friend to a modern, civilized world as it is not based on equality, equity and Free Will. Let’s not even discuss its retardation of scientific advancement, the basis for a civilization.

Since the fall of a secular, nationalist Iran to an unknown, radical clergy Ruhollah Khomeini and his successors, the world has changed drastically and for the worst. Iranians became entangled in an unnecessary and unwanted 8-year-old bloody war with Saddam Hussein, witnessed tens of thousands of intellectuals and nationalists being slaughtered both in Iran and abroad, watched their national history and identity get trampled and trashed, saw unjust and prejudicial inhumane actions against women and minorities, and shed blood through countless “Nedas” in attempts to regain their liberty and freedom.

As for Americans, the events of 9/11 is now part of their modern history since with the rise of Islamism in a rich country such as Iran, its radical tentacles spread globally as it gave birth to or fed similar “brotherhoods.”

Politics make history and history makes politics! Political acts committed by imperfect humans affect and shape world events. As the Bergman article quoted the former head of the Mossad, Meir Dagan, “The fact that someone has been elected doesn’t mean that he is smart.” Democracy is not perfect, because regardless of its election style, it leaves people in charge. People have to make decisions and they are driven by many forces including personal fears and perceptions.

Needless to say, the elected officials of two democratic nations on the forefront of this global danger, the U.S. and Israel, are split regarding future acts towards Iran. In this regard, even former Iranian diplomats have risen to stand for a free Iran from an Islamist problem-child regime in Teheran and against any foreign military attacks directed at Iran.

In an interview earlier this month, former Iranian Ambassador to the U.S. and former Iranian Foreign Minister, Ardeshir Zahedi, vehemently opposed any military strikes against Iran [an English translation of Zahedi's interview was published by:"Defense & Foreign Affairs" (Vol. XXX, no. 4) dated Jan. 25, 2012].

Zahedi made it clear he does “not want the 75 million Iranians all of whom [he] considers as [his] brothers and sisters to be in danger or be killed.” Zahedi noted that in its 3000 years of written history, Iran has been under attack from many different directions on countless occasions, but the nature of his fellow countrymen and women has not changed. That is, Iran is historically a country that promotes peace and cooperation. Despite having been wronged on numerous occasions by “friends” in the international community, Iranians are also not a vengeful people.

Zahedi addressed Iran’s nuclear energy dilemma. He acknowledged a unique country such as Iran given its strategic geopolitical situation has the right to have potential nuclear technology even nuclear weapons, but with a responsible regime in place. Zahedi believes that on this matter, “the prime objective is to either have the countries that possess nuclear weapons sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty or to declare the Middle East a nuclear free zone.”

According to Zahedi, “The world these days is quite interdependent. It is like when you throw a stone into a swimming pool, the wave reverberates in all directions.” In that regard, wars in general have no winners. The religious tension which did not exist prior to the fall of Iran in 1979 is being fed by foreign powers to maintain control of an important region such as the Middle East. Zahedi believes that this is an extension of former Western colonization policies which places innocent lives in danger.

There is no doubt that the Islamic Republic is problematic for Iranians and the world, but the regime has a limited lifeline while Iran is eternal. Iranians must remain patriotic and work together to solve their present demise without foreign interference, Zahedi said.

In an interview earlier this week, former Minister of the Iranian embassy in Washington and the current president of the Azadegan Foundation, Assad Homayoun, stated the Islamic Republic places Islam first and Iran last. Seasoned past policymakers should not be silent at such a critical time in world history, he said. Iranians must unite and remove the regime in Teheran which is the source of this global crisis, but remain vigilant against any attacks on Iran.

Homayoun reminded Israeli politicians that the Persian king Cyrus the Great is one of the main players in the Jewish people’s historiography. As such, Israelis should not attack the land of Cyrus which is now held hostage by a common enemy. Instead Israelis should stand with Iranians to remove the regime with minimal danger to its peoples.

Homayoun warned that today’s global leaders should not let the situation reach a point of no return. Five million successful and wealthy Iranians in exile should not remain silent against the crisis in which they find their homeland. They too share a responsibility to resolve the situation. Iranians in exile have power, money and resources, and as such, they have a duty to the well-being of their homeland Iran as well as adoptive nations, he said.

Homayoun is in agreement with Zahedi that Iran as a country has the right to defend itself. It is in need of some nuclear deterrent given that it is surrounded by nuclear nations such as Pakistan, India, China in the east, Russia in the north, and Israel in the West. But he is not in support of a nuclear domestic Islamic regime. “The regime in Teheran is dangerous and ignorant, but that is not a good enough reason to destroy Iran and its people by setting off a regional or perhaps world war,” he said.

Homayoun also confirmed that the Islamic Republic will be gone but Iran will remain and there is an ancient friendship between Iran and Israel that history-revisionists cannot delete. The small group dominating Iran’s affairs do not have the interest of Iran at heart. “They have usurped a big, beautiful castle and its inhabitants, but it is not necessary to destroy the castle and the people to get to the evil source,” he said.

Iranians must unite against these pressures now and take the matter into their own hands with moral support from international community, because neither war nor negotiations with the Islamic Republic will be successful.

According to the most seasoned Mossad operatives, Rafi Eitan in a recent interview, “The way to fight [Islamic Republic regime in Iran] is by changing the regime there. This is where we have really failed. We should encourage the opposition groups who turn to us over and over to ask for our help, and instead, we send them away empty-handed.”

In 539 BC, Persian king Cyrus the Great freed the Jewish captives from Babylon and declared they may return to their homeland. He promised to rebuild their destroyed temple. Subsequently, the Persian king Darius the Great was notified by the Jewish authorities that the funding promised by Cyrus had not been sent and the temple was still unfinished. After reviewing the records, Darius confirmed “In the first year of Cyrus the King, King Cyrus decreed: Temple of God in Jerusalem … will be rebuilt” and the expense is to be provided by the royal household. The Pomegranates eventually completed the funding of the Jewish temple, because in their culture a promise is a promise!

Now in 2012, some 2500 years later, the children of Iran are sending an S.O.S. to the children of Israel. Israel should help the secularist, nationalist Iranian opposition group that is willing, ready and able to overthrow the Islamist regime in Teheran.

Iran’s foundation was based on tolerance and peace. This Iranian grand strategy has endured throughout the centuries. Israel, more than the U.S., has a close and binding “blood-oath” with Iran. It had an ally in a pre-1979 secular Iran, and it will have one in a post-Islamic Republic Iran. This is what the Israelis should nurture. Answer the Iranian people’s S.O.S. and stand with them with all you have for the sake of both peoples, and not the irrational and primitive sense of fear.

Sheda Vasseghi is on the Board of Azadegan Foundation, and is a regular contributor to Freepressers.com and WorldTribune.com on Iran’s affairs. Join The Official Site of Sheda Vasseghi on Facebook.

.

.
AzariLoveIran

Re: The Iran Thread

Post by AzariLoveIran »

.

:lol: :lol:


.
AzariLoveIran

Re: The Iran Thread

Post by AzariLoveIran »

.


Huff Post

.

February 5, 2012

David Bromwich
Professor of Literature at Yale

Obama's Drift Toward War With Iran


02/ 2/2012

A story by Eric Schmitt in the New York Times on February 1 reported the testimony of January 31 by James R. Clapper, the director of national intelligence: Iran's leaders "are now more willing" to consider attacks inside the United States. The foggy grammar may be traceable to an editorial finger nudging the story. The real news of the Clapper testimony, namely that Iran is not working on a nuclear bomb (is not: no ambiguity there), was placed further down the page. When Schmitt mentions last fall's "suspected assassination plot" by Iran, he has the scruple to include the adjective "suspected." Details of the plot were so improbable -- its supposed executors were so crude, visible, and incompetent -- that it was hard to credit the claim that this had been ventured by the government of Iran at the highest levels. It looked more like one of the sting operations that have led to trials of suspected civilian terrorists, who get most of their ideas from the undercover agents that record the planning and spring the trap.

Of course, the suspected Iranian operation might have been the public face of an Israeli operation. We now know from Mark Perry's story "False Flag," in Foreign Policy, that Mossad agents in recent years posed as CIA agents to recruit Pakistani Jundullah terrorists in order to sow mayhem in Iran. Actions such as the "mysterious" recent explosions in Iran and the assassination of lower-echelon nuclear scientists on the streets of Tehran -- about which Israeli officials have expressed a public satisfaction that stops just short of claiming credit -- may also be taken as the handiwork of the United States if the false flag succeeds in planting false conclusions. This appears to have been the goal of the spate of recent killings and sabotage. The final aim for Israel and for its American assistants outside and inside the Obama administration, is not, however, war with Iran but regime change. Regime change in Syria -- Iran's most potent regional ally -- is a related project of the Likud in Israel and the neoconservatives in America. In Syria the work is far along; in Iran, they want to speed it up.

The way to regime change in Iran (so the strategy dictates) must pass through the destruction of the Iranian economy and a mixture of violence and menace to provoke the Iranian government. The Likud and neoconservative hope is simply to reach a point (if possible, before November) where Iran hits out first against the powers that are choking its trade, undermining its industry, assassinating its citizens and serving up serial ultimatums.

This story is easily penetrable. It is only lightly masked, that is to say, by American channels such as section A of the New York Times. The cooked-up crisis, over Iran's supposed option of "breaking out" to manufacture a weapon, goes on a false premise. As Gary Sick has explained, such an action would require Iran to expel the IAEA inspectors who are free order a surprise look at any site. The warning would come conspicuously, and Iran would have telegraphed its change to the world in advance. All the recent talk, bristling with expertise, about Israel giving the U.S. a 12-hour warning before an attack, is a diversion to play on popular fears. It keeps prodding the subject to keep the fever high in America -- a mood that is useful for many things, if you ever elect to use it. Practically speaking, what Benjamin Netanyahu and his defense minister Ehud Barak hope their actions may accomplish is another kind of breakout. They seek to lure Iran to attack American forces or American assets or Israel. In the latter case, they can claim that unless America does its duty and agrees to a joint attack, or takes the matter out of Israel's hands, Israel itself will attack.

In the last two years, the U.S. Congress has passed resolution after resolution condemning Iran, urging the president to do something hostile, and warning him against negotiations. The EU capitals, hungry for cheap oil and regional influence, clamor for the United States to do resolutely whatever it means to do. An intricate web has thus been constructed. Only great ingenuity and political talent could extricate an American president today. And while this was passing, how has Barack Obama been spending his time?

The president has made no comment on the situation. He has let it heat up for three years now, while the public mind grows swollen with false facts, and while negotiations, to the extent that there are negotiations, proceed under cover and in secret. As if negotiation were a shameful thing. Time does not tell for Obama. He will always have time. That was his philosophy in drawing out the health care debate for twelve months as his popularity sank from 70% to 45%. It was his policy once again, in catastrophically misjudging the odds for an agreement on the debt ceiling. In that affair, Obama hung back. He left it all in the hands of William Daley before sacking Daley and heading out on the campaign trail.

Obama never gets the jump on his opponents. But Iran, the site of his longest delay (because it is the most disagreeable problem he confronts), is the most important issue of his first term. Probably it is the most important he will ever confront in his life. If he drags the U.S. into another war, a war that will be seen throughout the Arab world as a crusade against Islam itself, this will be the thing Barack Obama is remembered for. Why does he suppose, with such recurrent fantasy, that tactical silence and secret action are superior to an honest grappling with the work of public persuasion? The truth is that all Obama's big speeches have been about general matters: changes he sides with but cannot effect. Eventual health coverage for all Americans; the preservation of the middle class; peace among all nations. But Iran should be different.

Let us grant the obstacles, both internal and external. Obama is radically unsuited to crisis, in several ways we are now familiar with. He hates to be involved in negotiations; is easily bored, easily rankled, and hasn't the patience and the power of suspending vanity that are necessary for the work. Also (and this abets inertia), his convictions have surprised him by being weaker than he supposed. He came to the presidency with a sense of himself and the world that was fundamentally immature; his time in office has seen a slow process of public recognition of that fact. He is not a fighter. He is not a "good hater." He is not particularly loyal to his party. He is only now learning what it is to be a good explainer. Finally -- a tremendous error, with Iran -- he delegates rather than takes charge. Distaste for the battle of politics (a different thing from the contest of campaigning) is accompanied, in him, by a love of speculative discussions. So Obama waits; and while he waits, on any given question, the public mood drifts in a direction opposite from what he thought he was aiming for.

To whom has he delegated the matter of Iran? Dennis Ross above all -- the member of the DC permanent establishment who is most reliably associated with the Israel lobby. And Tom Donilon, who gained the president's favor by applauding his 2009 middle-range solution on troop escalation in Afghanistan. The major previous achievements of Dennis Ross are the Clinton and Obama approaches to Palestine. The result speaks for itself. Donilon has been as little in evidence as any head of the National Security Council; before Obama elevated him, he was best known for helping to organize the eastward expansion of NATO: a disaster whose consequences the American people have yet to appreciate fully. So these are the men the president trusts -- in the first case, because of the impeccability of his renown; in the second, because he falls in with Obama's own propensity to continue Cheney-Bush policies but do it slowly in a softer tone.

On Iran, Obama has come to a crossroads. He will soon be called on to refute accusations of weakness by an explosive demonstration of "strength." If things get to that point, there is no doubt that he will do what the war party expects him to do. He will do it to win the election, but he will work hard to convince himself that he does it to save Israel, America, the cause of democracy in Asia, and the future of humanity. The path has been made all the more tempting by the discovery -- a surprise perhaps to the president himself -- that he is not averse to war. His favored mode of killing is the drone strike. There, the man who shoots the missile is far behind the scenes and the president's command of the killing is behind the man behind the scenes. Stealth, secrecy, and aloofness from accountability all make drone attacks non-confrontational, in a way well-adapted to Obama's temperament.

The U.S. is flying drones over Iran. One or two have been brought down, and some Republicans called for revenge. What if more are brought down, and what if several more politicians join the outcry? The Israel lobby and its congressional hosts may then convert the issue into a national cause. This president, who is moving toward war while hiding his negotiations and explaining nothing about Iran to offset the popular fears -- is he ready to argue against another war? Or has war with Iran (so long as it can be portrayed as begun by Iran) already in fact been selected as the path of least resistance?

In actual negotiations of all sorts, over the past three years, Barack Obama has seemed to believe that he is well served by staying well out. He may think so still. But all too conceivably, some day in the next few weeks or the next few months he will have maneuvered himself into giving another version of the Great Power speech he has given before; the one that begins, "So Iran has a choice." And yet, this president -- it was the single great difference between him and the other candidates in 2008 -- said he would negotiate with Iran. Nothing on any intelligence estimate has changed the nuclear status of Iran since he made that pledge. If he meant what he said, it was his business to lead public opinion to support the idea of negotiation and to educate the American people about the desired result.

While Obama waits, fortifications on the other side are being built up with fantastic brazenness. The New York Times, in almost back-to-back articles, on the front page on January 27 and on the cover of the magazine on January 29, informed its readers that Israel has calculated the risk and feels sure that it will not suffer badly in any retaliation following an attack on Iran. The first of these stories, by Ethan Bronner, for some reason quoted only Israeli sources and took their declared estimates at face value. The second, by the Israeli journalist Ronen Bergman, ended by flatly predicting Israel would attack Iran in 2012. (Jeffrey Goldberg, prompted by the same Israeli government sources, in a similar article two years ago in the Atlantic predicted they would attack in 2010.)

There was a puzzling thing about the Bergman story. A series of paragraphs near the end conveyed the substance of conversations with Meir Dagan, the former head of Mossad; and everything that was credibly said by Dagan served to discredit the rest of the article. For those paragraphs establish beyond any doubt: (a) that the crisis is nothing like as desperate or "existential" as Netanyahu and Barak have implied, and (b) that there is no long-term insurance for Israel that bombing Iran tomorrow can be supposed to achieve.

Worse than the Bergman article were the publicity captions for it, done in the Hearst manner. All of the "conditions" have been fulfilled for an Israeli attack, these marginal summaries told us. The question was not "if" but "when": a word repeated twice, in different places. So the Times cues and the Times Israel reporters, especially the ones favored with front-page stories and cover stories, are saying this is a last chance for Iran. David Sanger said it was the last chance in May 2009 and, to repeat, Jeffrey Goldberg said it in 2010, but both have been saying it again over the past several months. Others, too, are saying it now; and an election is on, with more than the usual champing bellicosity among the actors on the Republican side. The people who are playing with fire are people who like to play with fire.



The administration has taken note of the reckless Israeli mood and has warned against it on traditional diplomatic lines (words from the secretaries of state and defense and a visit to Israel by the chairman of the joint chiefs); in this way, it has done what it can to calm any actual fears and reach a semblance of tactical accord with Israel. Yet it surely serves the interest of Netanyahu to stoke unreal fears, provided this can be done indirectly, through "legitimate" channels like the New York Times, as well as more extravagant channels like the casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson. In a recent address (summarized by Michael Isikoff in an excellent piece of reporting), Adelson said that "unfortunately" he had worn an American uniform rather than an Israeli one when he served in the armed forces. That is the mode of thinking on that side.

The White House has worked up a story to justify Obama's passivity. The story says that sanctions -- the second half of the "dual track" diplomacy-sanction policy installed and overseen by Dennis Ross -- can now appropriately be raised to a level of strangulation even if this provokes a war. Why? Because all other paths have been tried and exhausted, and the mad mullahs of Iran and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have proved obdurate. But what is the history of the administration's talks with Iran? They are the subject of a new book by Trita Parsi whose title, A Single Roll of the Dice, tells a good deal of its story. Parsi tracks the nature and duration of the Obama effort. The book is sober, thoughtful, judicious, and written by an eminent scholar of international studies. It has not yet been reviewed in the New York Times.

The Obama negotiations, as Trita Parsi recounts, were hampered throughout by Obama's superstitious awe of the Ross approach; but he did briefly venture on the path he promised.

Parsi begins his history in 2001. How many Americans are aware that Iran adopted a sympathetic posture toward the United States after the attacks of September 11? They "offered air bases for use by the U.S.," says Parsi, and "offered to perform search-and-rescue missions for downed American pilots." They also linked up with the Northern Alliance in fighting the Taliban, and "used information provided by American forces to find and kill fleeing al-Qaeda leaders." All this, however, was following the "Hadley Rules" -- named after Stephen Hadley, Cheney's mole (as he was nicknamed) in the Cheney-Bush White House. Hadley had laid it down that "tactical collaboration with rogue states" was permitted but the strategy of overthrowing them must not change.

Note that, like the Hadley Rules, the Ross protocol of the dual track or "hybrid option" -- tightening sanctions even while you offer to negotiate -- has been carried over unchanged from the Cheney-Bush to the Obama administration. The hybrid option is an immaculate conception. It is hard to find a case in history where such a policy, exerted against such an ambitious power, has led to peace and not war. But sanctions imposed by Obama and the EU (with partial, equivocal, irregular agreement by Russia and China) have kept biting deeper even as negotiation is offered: peace and favorable trade relations, in exchange for the surrender of low-enriched uranium (LEU). Iran was required to give up all enrichment as a precondition for any eventual accord.

Within the administration, opposition to Ross came from Gary Samore: an authority on nuclear proliferation. Samore favored direct bilateral talks; but in the end Obama handed the victory to Ross. (Though Dennis Ross has now left government, President Obama is so keen on advice from that quarter that he has installed a phone by which he can talk to Ross directly.)

The cautious Iran policy of this cautious president began sensibly enough; yet it was weakened early on by a want of initiative and imagination. Obama avoided starting the negotiations before the 2009 Iranian election in order not to be seen to assist Ahmadinejad. Also he seems to have been intimidated by Benjamin Netanyahu's insistence that no diplomacy with Iran last more than two months and that the outcome be "zero enrichment." This public stand by America's most famous regional ally, backed by the enormous public throw-weight of the Israel lobby, marred Obama's efforts from the outset. Netanyahu demanded, in addition, that the Americans keep "all options on the table": a condition that led to some peculiar explorations of peaceable-belligerent phraseology by Joe Biden, Leon Panetta, and Obama himself.

As Trita Parsi notes, all this "militarized the atmosphere and created an environment that rendered diplomacy less likely to succeed or, worse, prevented it from being pursued in the first place." It was supposed to be a dual-track policy, yet in late March 2009 Robert Gates went on the record preferring sanctions to diplomacy. As with contradictory statements by other Obama officials about the same time, on the public option for health care and troop levels in Afghanistan, the off-script statement by the circumspect Gates was evidence of a president not in control of his own policies.

After George W. Bush and his fanatical condemnation of the "axis of evil," Iran, naturally enough, wanted a good-will gesture from Obama. He never offered one but, as in other areas, he nonetheless sought to distinguish himself by taking a different tone. He brought Iran into consultations on related issues such as Afghanistan; and he said that the U.S. would participate in negotiations via the Security Council. The closest Obama ever came to a gesture in words -- the New Year Greeting that he delivered in March 2009 -- was sabotaged by the rival New Year Greeting offered by Shimon Peres, the president of Israel. Peres conveyed his fervent hope that Iranians would rise up and overthrow their government.

In the Iranian election of June 2009 and its aftermath, it is not clear how far Obama and his advisers deceived themselves into thinking that a victory for Mir Hossein Mousavi might bring them closer to Iranian concessions on nuclear enrichment. Both candidates stood firm in defiance of the EU capitals and Israel. In any case, the tainted election and the murderous suppression of protest that followed made an unpropitious setting for the passage from a greeting on the air to a toe in the water of diplomacy. Obama waited until June 23, 2009 to make a strong statement against Iranian government repression. He was thinking of the negotiations, and he was uncertain whose advice to follow.

The battle to slow the sanctions in order to give time for negotiations was lost in Congress in 2009 thanks to inaction by the president. Perception that is slow, recognition that comes late, signals that are mixed, and a policy that is ambiguous, these are hallmarks of Obama in foreign policy, and the result is often a "forced" acceptance of a course he had pledged to work against, followed by a public announcement of the change of path and final acquiescence in Bush-era policies. The general policy of the administration in the Arab world and Islam -- the Middle East, north Africa, southwest Asia -- is consistent and clear. Its main features are: support of friendly autocrats and crowned heads, critical support of warlord clients, and, in relation to hostile or potentially hostile states, a drumbeat of threats and a steady subsidy of covert action to effect regime change.



Some of Parsi's grimmest pages concern the congressional push for sanctions. Demands from thoroughly lobbied members of Congress were hammering at Obama in late summer of 2009. Yet there was a contingent of Democrats ready to defend Obama's stance on the negotiations; these people looked for support and instruction to the president himself; but they heard nothing in reply. Should Democrats in Congress save their own skins and join the clamor -- thus buying protection for the coming election? Or should they side with President Obama? The silence of Obama and his advisers assured the triumph of harsh sanctions. Indeed, more direct and thoughtful criticism of Netanyahu and his American war brokers was heard, at this time, from the state department than from anyone closer to the president. "House representatives and senators 'stuck out their neck for Obama'" Parsi recounts, by their refusal to support early sanctions but their offers of help were simply ignored. According to a senate staffer: "[The White House] didn't take advantage of us."

So on the most important issue of his foreign policy, and the one on which Obama at considerable risk had staked out an original position during the 2008 campaign, the president, at the heart of the crisis, in late 2009 left a message on his machine that said to all callers, "Not at home."

In response to the void of leadership or even elementary contact from the White House, there set in a certain prudential reserve among Democrats in Congress. Parsi again: "They did not want, as one senior Senate staffer said, to 'be more Catholic than the Pope' and take on a fight that the White House itself was not willing to support."

In the fall of 2009, we learn in A Single Roll of the Dice, the White House was at first dismissive of sanctions; after all, sanctions had no chance of success in Congress, they thought. And yet, "the dismissive mood almost immediately turned into resignation." The reason was the disengagement of the president.

The sanction side of the dual-track policy came to its climax in early October 2009. By then, Iran had dropped all talk of the suspension of sanctions as a condition for a new agreement, and discussions at Geneva, with Americans among the parties, were received favorably by the hardline cleric Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami. But a few days later, a setback occurred, as Obama seemed in danger of losing his quest for multilateral financial sanctions and Congress pushed for unilateral gasoline sanctions. At the second round of negotiations, on October 19, the sticking point was the central role assigned to France: a country that Iran with reason distrusts even more than it distrusts the U.S. Russia now interceded to subcontract for a swap of LEU in place of France. This modification was agreeable to Iran, and Mohammad ElBaradei said the talks had been constructive. The parties went back to their home countries for consultation and (they hoped) corroboration.

Iran, it should be noted, at this time was under immense pressure from the turmoil of its factions; and on October 29 its negotiators asked for further discussion. Hillary Clinton said no. Take the previous agreement or nothing. Her tactic worked as well as all ultimatums have ever worked on Iran. The EU capitals, the American Congress, and Israel (in reverse order of vehemence and importance) were eager to move toward "crippling" sanctions. The Obama administration showed no great resource in working against them. Such is the immediate background of the standoff today.

Obama took a serious risk in starting on the path of diplomacy soon after the tainted election in Iran. Parsi is candid here, both in his praise of the momentary daring this required and his verdict on the poor judgment it betrayed. "At the end of the day, it was a risk that did not pay off for the president's desire to resolve tensions with Iran through diplomacy." Earlier engagement would have been better, and longer-lasting engagement would have been wiser. But the active phase of the Obama policy was a sprint with a full stop, capped by the premature decision to call it quits. "Iran's political elite was literally at war with itself," Parsi observes, and delays at such a time could have been anticipated as a predictable hazard.

Israel was pleased at the failure of the negotiations. The right-wing coalition government of Netanyahu "had told the Obama administration that they could accept diplomacy as long as Washington expected it would fail." Repeat: they could accept diplomacy as long as Washington was reasonably sure it would fail. This captures the present state of relations between Israel and the United States in all matters concerning the Arab world and Islam. It is a relationship Barack Obama has dared to challenge rhetorically but has never defied in action.

On Iran, as on Palestine, Netanyahu routed Obama. "Though the desire for diplomacy was genuine," writes Parsi, "the administration's lack of confidence in its chances of succeeding -- several high officials in the Obama administration told me separately that they did not believe diplomacy would work -- raises the question as to whether the White House would finally invest in a policy it believed would fail." This is a rare moment when Trita Parsi should have followed or clarified the direction of his thought. It would have been good to hear his speculation, marked as a speculation, about why the White House may have pursued a policy it expected to fail.

The departing chairman of the joint chiefs of staff in 2011, Admiral Mike Mullen, said more than once that an Israeli strike against Iran "would be a big, big, big problem for all of us." The appointment of Mullen's successor, General Martin Dempsey, was greeted last June by an interesting headline in Haaretz: "Obama's New Security Staff May Approve Attack on Iran." The only detail of the story to suggest an inference that Dempsey might approve an attack was the fact that, as head of Tradoc (Training and Doctrine Command), General Dempsey had expressed admiration for the Israeli conduct of the Yom Kippur war, and while on the job he worked with the regular IDF liaison officer at Tradoc. It remains to be seen whether he will speak out as strongly as Mullen did.

The detachment of the president, through much of the Iran process and in related matters, is epitomized by one anecdote in A Single Roll of the Dice. The scene is the middle of a tense meeting in which Obama alone was in a position to effect a change against plans for resumed construction by Israel in East Jerusalem. "Netanyahu would not yield, prompting Obama to abruptly rise from his seat and declare: 'I'm going to the residential wing to have dinner with Michelle and the girls.'" This exit was parenthetically qualified by a reassurance: he "would still be available if Netanyahu were to change his mind." But there is no mistaking the exit. It is not the gesture of a negotiator. It is unimaginable in FDR, Kennedy, or Carter at Camp David. Nothing could be more damaging than such a display of indifference and exasperation and the haughty assertion of "other things to do."

An eerily similar moment was recorded by Ron Suskind in Confidence Men as the cut that closed an important meeting with Obama's economic team. In the middle of a discussion about the restructuring of the large insolvent banks, Timothy Geithner and Lawrence Summers resumed an argument the president had hoped was over. "Look," Suskind reports Obama saying, "I'm going to get a haircut and have dinner with my family. You've heard me. When I come back I want this issue resolved." By the time he returned, a phony consensus had been arranged to back "stress tests" as a substitute for the dismantling of "too big to fail" institutions that Obama originally proposed. He asked few questions. He was glad to see it solved while he was away.

On Iran, in the fall of 2009, Obama missed his chance for an agreement on a low-enriched uranium swap by dealing only in ultimatums. In spring 2010, he got a second chance and ignored it. This was the Brazil-Turkey swap of LEU which emerged as a concrete proposal acceptable to Iran. After the April 12 and 13 nuclear summit, negotiators for Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and Recip Tayyip Erdogan were allowed to speak with Obama for 15 minutes, a meeting that was "tense and testy" on his side. "The mixed messages from Washington continued," writes Parsi. "Obama was skeptical of diplomacy, yet softly encouraged both Turkey and Brazil's efforts." He acted as if, unlike Netanyahu, he really would not mind if diplomacy succeeded. As it fell out, "by mid-May 2010 Brazil and Turkey had achieved what America and Europe had failed to achieve." This should have been good news; but Obama declined to seize an opening for which he could not have claimed the credit. An administration official speaks the most disquieting sentence in A Single Roll of the Dice, about the odd refusal of triumphant diplomacy by the president. "We could not take yes for an answer."

More than lack of imagination and personal vanity were here involved. With enormous bribes, Obama had succeeded in persuading Russia to join the latest regime of sanctions. He might lose face if, owing to Brazil and Turkey, he walked that bargain back. Even so, his "swift and undiplomatic rejection of the deal surprised a large number of officials within the U.S. government." Obama's letter specifying conditions for an LEU swap gave explicit support to the exact terms of the deal that was finally negotiated by Turkey and Brazil. Hillary Clinton had no answer, therefore, when the Brazilian diplomat Celso Amorim pointed out that Obama had rejected what Obama himself requested. But Washington had kept the president's letter "on the table" only because they assumed that the Turkey-Brazil negotiations would fail.

Gasoline sanctions were signed into law by Obama on July 1, 2010. He had taken a single roll of the dice. On this question, he did not ask to be summoned back from his dinner if anything new came up. The assumption was that further diplomacy would only weaken international support for sanctions.

Parsi concludes his narrative on an impartial note: "The political maneuverability Obama enjoyed on Iran when he first took office had by now been completely eaten away by pressure from Israel and Congress, the fallout from the June 2009 Iranian presidential election, and Iran's refusal to accept the Russian-American swap proposal in October 2009." But it is two other sentences, quoted from an administration official, that stay in one's mind: "The impression, right or wrong, that was created was that we could not take yes for an answer. That was not what I would call a triumph of public diplomacy." Parsi for his part adds that "the president's vision and political space were continually compromised." This cloudy statement is a rare deviation from the author's usual clarity. Compromised (one wants to know) in what way and by whom? Obama let this happen. Why has he apparently resigned himself to allowing Israel to dictate the course of events? He might wish to have had the "vision" not to allow it -- but again, vision in what sense? Was there a group of advisers, a power within the power of the White House, who screened from the president's view and thereby obstructed him from seeing information he should properly have seen? Or does "vision" here refer to grand ideas of regional policy, such as Obama articulated in his Cairo speech of June 2009?

Anyway, it was a different vision we were asked to applaud, and a different policy had evidently been adopted, by the time he made his Nobel Prize speech on December 10, 2009. Iran diplomacy had broken up and Obama in Oslo reclaimed for America the title of beneficent world garrison state. That was the speech of a man who thought the United States should concede no particle of its dominance; the speech of a military president, filled with pride in the array of forces under his command.

What of Iran today? Parsi assigns at least equal blame for the failure of negotiations to the Iranian government. "Doubts about Obama's intentions and abilities made an already risk-averse leadership in Tehran more disinclined to take a gamble for peace." By the time the White House gave up negotiations, "the Obama administration simply had not settled on a desired endgame with Iran, on the nuclear issue or otherwise." Otherwise here means nothing less than the choice between war and peace. Has this question been answered even yet? The causes for the drift toward war are plain: "Obama never really fought at home to get the political space he needed to succeed." That fight would have meant a confrontation with Cheney, McCain, Lindsey Graham and the mob of the policy elite at the American Enterprise Institute. Such a confrontation Obama did not have the courage, foresight, or capacity to engage in. He had registered the ascendancy of Cheney's will over his own already in his National Archives Speech of May 2009 when he signaled that the War on Terror was morally right and the category of enemy combatant would be preserved, with an added category of permanent detainees. Cheney has won the security argument in Obama's mind, whenever there is an argument.

What is the prognosis? In foreign policy generally, Obama has done what Bush did or what Bush would have done in similar circumstances. He compensates by (a) doing it slowly and (b) giving it a less unpleasant name. The heavy rhetorical emphasis on multilateralism in NATO's deposing of Gaddafi is an example -- right down to the ad hoc coinage of the unhappy and quickly withdrawn phrase "leading from behind". The exception proves the rule: Obama likes Predator drone strikes and lethal action by the Navy Seals. To say it again: a main reason seems to be that these are acts he can order himself -- in secret, based on secret evidence -- which go forward without check or oversight. If the actions fail, they need not be publicized. He has never stopped wanting to do big things, but he tends to think about policy in the most generalized way. ("We need more moon shot!" and "What is my narrative?" are two characteristic ruminations quoted by Suskind in Confidence Men.) Under pressure, Obama makes sure that progress is slow in order to keep a path open for turning back.

Nothing could be more disastrous for America and nothing could be less necessary than war with Iran. Obama's idea, if it is his idea, that he can assist or countenance or be party to an attack by Israel without deep repercussions against the United States and many of its assets and its people the world over, is the most desperate of fantasies. The repercussions, if they are not felt at once, will be felt for a generation and more. Obama has let the war party have their innings until they are sure that they control him. All the signs now, and above all his reluctance to make a case for negotiation or even to hint at the progress of diplomacy that may be under way, suggest that the people who pitched for the Iraq war and have Iran in their sights are counting Obama as one of their own. He is reluctant, yes, but he is almost a committed man. The latest propaganda for war has gone so far that it will be a full-time job to resist the momentum building to a "test" some time this year. As it stands, Iran is headed to become for Obama in 2012 what the economy was in 2010: a controllable crisis which, through personal inaction and conventional acquiescence in failed policies, threatens to pass utterly beyond his control.

.

.
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5643
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: The Iran Thread

Post by Parodite »

This long drivelous article falls on its face from the get go: it fails to acknowlegde that Iran has no reason NOT to have nuclear weapons. My own country Holland, not particuly under threat or threatening anybody, has around 200 tactical nuclearized mid and long range missiles able to flatten Moscow and other cities if we think that's cool and necessary.

A nuclear deterrent in a nuclearized world is what you need if you have any selfrespect at all. It is unlikely that a nuclear armsrace in the Meddle-east - a region known for its peace-loving cultures and rational-pragmatic neighbourly interactions - can be prevented. Israel, Pakistan, India have nukes. Saddam obviously was trying to make them for same and good reasons. Syria is trying too. Sunni oil states will just buy nukes if they think the climate requires such.

Anyone believing that the traumatised and having tendency towards hysteric paranoia Iranian clerics and guntas of Achmadinejad don't want a robust nuclear deterrent are out of touch with reality.

Because a nuclear armsrace in the ME is most likely, it might be better to actually promote it to happen. By all means arm yourself to the teeth. As with drugs: make it illegal and you end up with war. Make it legal and there is good chance the thing becomes manageable.
Deep down I'm very superficial
AzariLoveIran

Re: The Iran Thread

Post by AzariLoveIran »

Parodite wrote:.

This long drivelous article falls on its face from the get go: it fails to acknowlegde that Iran has no reason NOT to have nuclear weapons. My own country Holland, not particuly under threat or threatening anybody, has around 200 tactical nuclearized mid and long range missiles able to flatten Moscow and other cities if we think that's cool and necessary.

A nuclear deterrent in a nuclearized world is what you need if you have any selfrespect at all. It is unlikely that a nuclear armsrace in the Meddle-east - a region known for its peace-loving cultures and rational-pragmatic neighbourly interactions - can be prevented. Israel, Pakistan, India have nukes. Saddam obviously was trying to make them for same and good reasons. Syria is trying too. Sunni oil states will just buy nukes if they think the climate requires such.

Anyone believing that the traumatised and having tendency towards hysteric paranoia Iranian clerics and guntas of Achmadinejad don't want a robust nuclear deterrent are out of touch with reality.

Because a nuclear armsrace in the ME is most likely, it might be better to actually promote it to happen. By all means arm yourself to the teeth. As with drugs: make it illegal and you end up with war. Make it legal and there is good chance the thing becomes manageable.

.

Relaaax, Parodite, relaaax

Untitled.png
Untitled.png (83.83 KiB) Viewed 8776 times

.
AzariLoveIran

The Russia Thread

Post by AzariLoveIran »

.

Russian Joint Chiefs of Staff Col.-Gen. Leonid Ivashov: Russia Is Ready to Use Military Power to Defend Iran and Syria; Attack on Syria or Iran Is Indirect Attack on Russia; US in Libya Like Hitler in Poland


Transcript

.
A strike against Syria or Iran is an indirect strike against Russia and its interests. Russia would lose important positions and allies in the Arab world. Therefore, by defending Syria, Russia is defending its own interests.

In addition, Russia is thus defending the entire world from Fascism.

Everybody should acknowledge that Fascism is making strides on our planet.

What they did in Libya is nearly identical to what Hitler and his armies did against Poland and then Russia.

Today, therefore, Russia is defending the entire world from Fascism.
.

:lol: he has a valid case


.
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5643
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: The Iran Thread

Post by Parodite »

AzariLoveIran wrote:
Untitled.png
Sources? Evidence?

The very funny part being:
Defence and Foreign Affairs wrote:GIS/Defence & Foreign Affairs has seen absolutely convincing evidence. since 1991, that these [nuclear] weapons were acquired by Iran. They are, however, not militarily meaningful, other than for psychological purposes, and particularly including deterrence of invasion.
:lol: :shock: :lol:

1) So non-meaningful nuclear weapons were imported.
Wow

2) Those "GIS/Defence & Foreign Affairs" 007-ens detectives have absolutely convincing evidence?
Wow!! Says who?
Proof of nuclear weapons that are militarily "non-meaningful"... Sounds like the report of a shrink after he talked to a psychotic Iranian who is out of touch with reality. It turns out to be all in his head?

3) ".... not militarily meaningful, other than for psychological purposes", indeed...psychotic content has a psychological reason no doubt... and then comes the cream on the cake with the emphasis on and "...and particularly including deterrence of invasion". The and here, suggests that deterrence is only one of many more psychological purposes...One wonders what those other psychological purposes are... that exist in the head as well no doubt.
Deep down I'm very superficial
AzariLoveIran

Re: The Iran Thread

Post by AzariLoveIran »

Parodite wrote:
AzariLoveIran wrote:
Untitled.png
Sources? Evidence?

The very funny part being:
Defence and Foreign Affairs wrote:GIS/Defence & Foreign Affairs has seen absolutely convincing evidence. since 1991, that these [nuclear] weapons were acquired by Iran. They are, however, not militarily meaningful, other than for psychological purposes, and particularly including deterrence of invasion.
:lol: :shock: :lol:

1) So non-meaningful nuclear weapons were imported.
Wow

2) Those "GIS/Defence & Foreign Affairs" 007-ens detectives have absolutely convincing evidence?
Wow!! Says who?
Proof of nuclear weapons that are militarily "non-meaningful"... Sounds like the report of a shrink after he talked to a psychotic Iranian who is out of touch with reality. It turns out to be all in his head?

3) ".... not militarily meaningful, other than for psychological purposes", indeed...psychotic content has a psychological reason no doubt... and then comes the cream on the cake with the emphasis on and "...and particularly including deterrence of invasion". The and here, suggests that deterrence is only one of many more psychological purposes...One wonders what those other psychological purposes are... that exist in the head as well no doubt.

.

Have posted the source link a few times


"Defense & Foreign Affairs" (Vol. XXX, no. 4) dated Jan. 25, 2012

And

you misunderstood what it means "They are, however, not militarily meaningful, other than for psychological purposes, and particularly including deterrence of invasion."

it does not mean those nukes do not function .. they do

what it means is "nuclear weapon are, generally, militarily, useless .. only a deterrent against beasts

unless, one a beast



.
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5643
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: The Iran Thread

Post by Parodite »

AzariLoveIran wrote: you misunderstood what it means "They are, however, not militarily meaningful, other than for psychological purposes, and particularly including deterrence of invasion."
it does not mean those nukes do not function .. they do
what it means is "nuclear weapon are, generally, militarily, useless .. only a deterrent against beasts
unless, one a beast .
It is nonsense. Deterrence is a valid and operational military concept. Nuclear intercontinental missiles are very potent destroyers and a real deterrent. Not just symbolic at all. They can and will be used in terrible enough circumstances by desperate enough people. Mutually Assured Destruction only holds as a deterrent until one side realizes he will go down anyways... and then decides it is only fair if the winner goes down as well.
Deep down I'm very superficial
AzariLoveIran

Re: The Iran Thread

Post by AzariLoveIran »

Parodite wrote:.
AzariLoveIran wrote:.

you misunderstood what it means "They are, however, not militarily meaningful, other than for psychological purposes, and particularly including deterrence of invasion."
it does not mean those nukes do not function .. they do
what it means is "nuclear weapon are, generally, militarily, useless .. only a deterrent against beasts
unless, one a beast.

.
It is nonsense. Deterrence is a valid and operational military concept. Nuclear intercontinental missiles are very potent destroyers and a real deterrent. Not just symbolic at all. They can and will be used in terrible enough circumstances by desperate enough people. Mutually Assured Destruction only holds as a deterrent until one side realizes he will go down anyways... and then decides it is only fair if the winner goes down as well.

.
Parodite ,

You still fighting 1950's wars

new wars, wars of futures, will not be fought Face2Face by armies

new wars, "between big boys", are fought by clandestine, invisible, stealth, asymmetric and and and strategies

America losing in Iraq, losing in Afghanistan, retreating from ME .. despite all those Nukes America has

Face2Face only "beast against the sheep" .. Nato/America against Qaddafi (& Saddam), now Assad

Iran, big boy, that is why west/Europe/Zionist behave

and

Did USSR not fall, or European Apartheidist in South Africa not fall despite nuclear weapon ?

.
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5643
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: The Iran Thread

Post by Parodite »

AzariLoveIran wrote:
Parodite wrote:.
AzariLoveIran wrote:.

you misunderstood what it means "They are, however, not militarily meaningful, other than for psychological purposes, and particularly including deterrence of invasion."
it does not mean those nukes do not function .. they do
what it means is "nuclear weapon are, generally, militarily, useless .. only a deterrent against beasts
unless, one a beast.

.
It is nonsense. Deterrence is a valid and operational military concept. Nuclear intercontinental missiles are very potent destroyers and a real deterrent. Not just symbolic at all. They can and will be used in terrible enough circumstances by desperate enough people. Mutually Assured Destruction only holds as a deterrent until one side realizes he will go down anyways... and then decides it is only fair if the winner goes down as well.

.
Parodite ,

You still fighting 1950's wars
I was just saying that a nuclear deterrent is a real military deterrent. You seem to be sure they won't be used. Now that is typical of the naivity of the 50-ies. The US and USSR were nearly there.. a nuclear confrontation. Now those two were reasonably in control of their sentiments and actions. A nuclearized middle east... I'm not so sure things won't go wrong there at one point.
new wars, wars of futures, will not be fought Face2Face by armies
new wars, "between big boys", are fought by clandestine, invisible, stealth, asymmetric and and and strategies
America losing in Iraq, losing in Afghanistan, retreating from ME .. despite all those Nukes America has
Face2Face only "beast against the sheep" .. Nato/America against Qaddafi (& Saddam), now Assad
Iran, big boy, that is why west/Europe/Zionist behave
and
Did USSR not fall, or European Apartheidist in South Africa not fall despite nuclear weapon ?
Any and all types of war are always possible. Old fashioned genocide, nuclear escalations, terrorist acts, conventional carpet bombing, economic choking, political coercion, covert assasinations...YAWN the list is too long.

The point is: no one knows exactly what will happen, how and when wars will erupt. How big they get, who comes out winning.. the after-war landscapes.. it all is rife with uncertainty, amigo Az. One thing appears to be the case though: a shift from land to air. Troops on the ground are too costly.
Deep down I'm very superficial
User avatar
monster_gardener
Posts: 5334
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:36 am
Location: Trolla. Land of upside down trees and tomatos........

Difference betwen Men and Beasts esp. Dogs

Post by monster_gardener »

AzariLoveIran wrote:
Parodite wrote:
AzariLoveIran wrote:
Untitled.png
Sources? Evidence?

The very funny part being:
Defence and Foreign Affairs wrote:GIS/Defence & Foreign Affairs has seen absolutely convincing evidence. since 1991, that these [nuclear] weapons were acquired by Iran. They are, however, not militarily meaningful, other than for psychological purposes, and particularly including deterrence of invasion.
:lol: :shock: :lol:

1) So non-meaningful nuclear weapons were imported.
Wow

2) Those "GIS/Defence & Foreign Affairs" 007-ens detectives have absolutely convincing evidence?
Wow!! Says who?
Proof of nuclear weapons that are militarily "non-meaningful"... Sounds like the report of a shrink after he talked to a psychotic Iranian who is out of touch with reality. It turns out to be all in his head?

3) ".... not militarily meaningful, other than for psychological purposes", indeed...psychotic content has a psychological reason no doubt... and then comes the cream on the cake with the emphasis on and "...and particularly including deterrence of invasion". The and here, suggests that deterrence is only one of many more psychological purposes...One wonders what those other psychological purposes are... that exist in the head as well no doubt.

.

Have posted the source link a few times


"Defense & Foreign Affairs" (Vol. XXX, no. 4) dated Jan. 25, 2012

And

you misunderstood what it means "They are, however, not militarily meaningful, other than for psychological purposes, and particularly including deterrence of invasion."

it does not mean those nukes do not function .. they do

what it means is "nuclear weapon are, generally, militarily, useless .. only a deterrent against beasts

unless, one a beast



.
`

Thank you Very Much for your post, Friend Azari.
unless, one a beast
Remembering a discussion between C.S. Lewis and "Old Knock" his teacher about how to describe some war crimes of the times.......

Lewis: 'Demonic, Devilish atrocities'........

Old Knock: 'No such thing as demons or devils.'

Lewis: "Brutal atrocities!".......

Old Knock: 'When have brute beasts ever been known to do things like this?'*.........

Lewis: 'What then shall we call them?' .........

Old Knock: 'Why not just human atrocities".............

paraphrase from IIRC "Surprised by Joy".......


*Difference between a man and a dog: Take in a starving dog & starving man & feed them both till they are healthy, the dog will be less likely to bite you......... ;) :(
For the love of G_d, consider you & I may be mistaken.
Orion Must Rise: Killer Space Rocks Coming Our way
The Best Laid Plans of Men, Monkeys & Pigs Oft Go Awry
Woe to those who long for the Day of the Lord, for It is Darkness, Not Light
User avatar
monster_gardener
Posts: 5334
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:36 am
Location: Trolla. Land of upside down trees and tomatos........

Iranian warships dock at Saudi port

Post by monster_gardener »

http://www.breitbart.com/print.php?id=C ... _article=1
Feb 4 02:27 PM US/Eastern
Iranian naval ships docked on Saturday in the Saudi port city of Jeddah on a mission to project the Islamic republic's "power on the open seas," the Fars news agency reported.

The supply ship Kharg and Shaid Qandi, a destroyer, docked in the Red Sea port in line with orders from Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, it quoted navy commander Admiral Habibollah Sayari as saying.

"This mission aims to show the power of the Islamic republic of Iran on the open seas and to confront Iranophobia," he said, adding that the mission started several days ago and would last 70 to 80 days.
Hat tip to HoosierNorm at the Spengler board.
For the love of G_d, consider you & I may be mistaken.
Orion Must Rise: Killer Space Rocks Coming Our way
The Best Laid Plans of Men, Monkeys & Pigs Oft Go Awry
Woe to those who long for the Day of the Lord, for It is Darkness, Not Light
User avatar
monster_gardener
Posts: 5334
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:36 am
Location: Trolla. Land of upside down trees and tomatos........

Quick Draw Contest may be setting up...........

Post by monster_gardener »

Ayatollah:kill-all-jews-annihilate-israel

http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/ayatollah-ki ... te-israel/
The Iranian government, through a website proxy, has laid out the legal and religious justification for the destruction of Israel and the slaughter of its people.

The doctrine includes wiping out Israeli assets and Jewish people worldwide.

Calling Israel a danger to Islam, the conservative website Alef, with ties to Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said the opportunity must not be lost to remove “this corrupting material. It is a “‘jurisprudential justification” to kill all the Jews and annihilate Israel, and in that, the Islamic government of Iran must take the helm.”
On Friday, in a major speech at prayers, Khamenei announced that Iran will support any nation or group that attacks the “cancerous tumor” of Israel. Though his statement was seen by some in the West as fluff, there is substance behind it.

Iran’s Defense Ministry announced this weekend that it test-fired an advanced two-stage, solid-fuel ballistic missile and boasted about successfully putting a new satellite into orbit, reminding the West that its engineers have mastered the technology for intercontinental ballistic missiles even as the Islamic state pushes its nuclear weapons program.

The commander of the Revolutionary Guards, Brig. Gen. Seyyed Mehdi Farahi, stated in August that the Safir missile, which is capable of transporting a satellite into space, can easily be launched parallel to the earth’s orbit, which will transform it into an intercontinental ballistic missile. Western analysts didn’t believe this would happen until 2015. Historically, orbiting a satellite is the criterion for crediting a nation with ICBM capability.
............
In order to attack Iran, the article says, Israel needs the approval and assistance of America, and under the current passive climate in the United States, the opportunity must not be lost to wipe out Israel before it attacks Iran.

Under this pre-emptive defensive doctrine, several Ground Zero points of Israel must be destroyed and its people annihilated. Forghani cites the last census by the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics that shows Israel has a population of 7.5 million citizens of which a majority of 5.7 million are Jewish. Then it breaks down the districts with the highest concentration of Jewish people, indicating that three cities, Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Haifa, contain over 60 percent of the Jewish population that Iran could target with its Shahab 3 ballistic missiles, killing all its inhabitants.

Forghani suggests that Iran’s Sejil missile, which is a two-stage rocket with a trajectory and speed that make it impossible to intercept, should target such Israeli facilities as: the Rafael nuclear plant, which is the main nuclear engineering center of Israel; the Eilun nuclear plant; another Israeli reactor in Nebrin; and the Dimona reactor in the nuclear research center in Neqeb, the most critical nuclear reactor in Israel because it produces 90 percent enriched uranium for Israel’s nuclear weapons.

Other targets, according to the article, include airports and air force bases such as the Sedot Mikha Air Base, which contains Jericho ballistic missiles and is located southwest of the Tel Nof Air Base, where aircraft equipped with nuclear weapons are based. Secondary targets include power plants, sewage treatment facilities, energy resources, and transportation and communication infrastructures.

Finally, Forghani says, Shahab 3 and Ghadr missiles can target urban settlements until the Israelis are wiped out.

Forghani claims that Israel could be destroyed in less than nine minutes and that Khamenei, as utmost authority, the Velayete Faghih (Islamic Jurist), also believes that Israel and America not only must be defeated but annihilated.

Sounds like a quick draw contest is setting up for similar reasons on both sides......... prevent the other from doing it........

Israel is small....... AIUI May need as few as 1 nuke to effectively destroy it as a nation..............

Would not surprise me at all if Iran already has nukes from Russia, Pakistan or elsewhere........

Iran is large but AIUI Israel has more nukes......... If a few survive: nuclear subs or even just on site

If facing destruction IMVVHO the Samson Masada meme become active........ Don't be surprised if the nukes are "salted" to be fallout weapons........

A lot depends on what salt & how much........ will Israel be out to "do" just Iran or all of Amalek..........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt_bomb

Keep working on that bomb shelter.........

What a shame.........

Those nukes could be used to do this.............

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Or ... pulsion%29
For the love of G_d, consider you & I may be mistaken.
Orion Must Rise: Killer Space Rocks Coming Our way
The Best Laid Plans of Men, Monkeys & Pigs Oft Go Awry
Woe to those who long for the Day of the Lord, for It is Darkness, Not Light
AzariLoveIran

Re: The Iran Thread

Post by AzariLoveIran »

User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5643
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: The Iran Thread

Post by Parodite »

Will Israel Attack Iran?

By RONEN BERGMAN
Published: January 25, 2012

As the Sabbath evening approached on Jan. 13, Ehud Barak paced the wide living-room floor of his home high above a street in north Tel Aviv, its walls lined with thousands of books on subjects ranging from philosophy and poetry to military strategy. Barak, the Israeli defense minister, is the most decorated soldier in the country’s history and one of its most experienced and controversial politicians. He has served as chief of the general staff for the Israel Defense Forces, interior minister, foreign minister and prime minister. He now faces, along with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and 12 other members of Israel’s inner security cabinet, the most important decision of his life — whether to launch a pre-emptive attack against Iran.
Deep down I'm very superficial
AzariLoveIran

Re: The Iran Thread

Post by AzariLoveIran »

.


Iran’s Achilles’ Heel

.

February 7, 2012

Iran’s Achilles’ Heel


By EFRAIM HALEVY

Jerusalem

THE public debate in America and Israel these days is focused obsessively on whether to attack Iran in order to halt its nuclear weapons ambitions; hardly any attention is being paid to how events in Syria could result in a strategic debacle for the Iranian government. Iran’s foothold in Syria enables the mad mullahs in Tehran to pursue their reckless and violent regional policies — and its presence there must be ended.

Ensuring that Iran is evicted from its regional hub in Damascus would cut off Iran’s access to its proxies (Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza) and visibly dent its domestic and international prestige, possibly forcing a hemorrhaging regime in Tehran to suspend its nuclear policies. This would be a safer and more rewarding option than the military one.

As President Bashar al-Assad’s government falters, Syria is becoming Iran’s Achilles’ heel. Iran has poured a vast array of resources into the country. There are Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps encampments and Iranian weapons and advisers throughout Syria. And Iranian-controlled Hezbollah forces from Lebanon have joined in butchering the Syrians who have risen up against Mr. Assad. Iran is intent on assuring its hold over the country regardless of what happens to Mr. Assad — and Israel and the West must prevent this at all costs.

Sadly, the opportunities presented by Syria’s meltdown seem to be eluding Israeli leaders. Last week, Israel’s military intelligence chief spoke of the 200,000 missiles and rockets in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria that could reach all of Israel’s population centers. And there is a growing risk that advanced Syrian weapons might fall into the hands of terrorist groups. Iran’s presence in Damascus is vital to maintaining these threats.

At this stage, there is no turning back; Mr. Assad must step down. For Israel, the crucial question is not whether he falls but whether the Iranian presence in Syria will outlive his government. Getting Iran booted out of Syria is essential for Israel’s security. And if Mr. Assad goes, Iranian hegemony over Syria must go with him. Anything less would rob Mr. Assad’s departure of any significance.

[..]

The current standoff in Syria presents a rare chance to rid the world of the Iranian menace to international security and well-being. And ending Iran’s presence there poses less of a risk to international commerce and security than harsher sanctions or war.

Russia and China, both of which vetoed a United Nations resolution last week calling on Mr. Assad to step down, should realize that his downfall could serve their interests, too. After all, Iranian interventionism could wreak havoc in Muslim-majority areas to Russia’s south and China’s west. And a nuclear-armed Iran would pose a serious potential threat on Russia’s southern border.

Russia’s interests in Syria are not synonymous with Iran’s, and Moscow can now prove this by withdrawing its unwavering support for Mr. Assad. Russia simply wishes to maintain its access to Syria’s Mediterranean ports in Tartus and Latakia and to remain a major arms supplier to Damascus. If Washington is willing to allow that, and not to sideline Russia as it did before intervening in Libya, the convergence of American and Russian interests in Iran and Syria could pave the way for Mr. Assad’s downfall.

Once this is achieved, the entire balance of forces in the region would undergo a sea change. Iranian-sponsored terrorism would be visibly contained; Hezbollah would lose its vital Syrian conduit to Iran and Lebanon could revert to long-forgotten normalcy; Hamas fighters in Gaza would have to contemplate a future without Iranian weaponry and training; and the Iranian people might once again rise up against the regime that has brought them such pain and suffering.

Those who see this scenario as a daydream should consider the alternative: a post-Assad government still wedded to Iran with its fingers on the buttons controlling long-range Syrian missiles with chemical warheads that can strike anywhere in Israel. This is a certain prescription for war, and Israel would have no choice but to prevent it.

Fortunately, Mr. Assad and his allies have unwittingly created an opportunity to defuse the Iranian threat. If the international community does not seize it and Iranian influence in Syria emerges intact, the world will face a choice between a military strike and even more crippling sanctions, which could cause oil prices to skyrocket and throw the world economy off balance. The United States and Russia should wish for neither.

Syria has created a third option. We do not have the luxury of ignoring it.

Efraim Halevy, a former Israeli national security adviser and ambassador, was director of the Mossad from 1998 to 2002.

.

.
AzariLoveIran

Re: The Iran Thread

Post by AzariLoveIran »

.

ForeignAffairs.com

.

How to Engage Iran

What Went Wrong Last Time — And How to Fix It


by Hossein Mousavian

10-Feb-2012


Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, two major schools of thought have influenced Iran's foreign policy toward the United States. The first maintains that Iran and the United States can reach a compromise based on mutual respect, noninterference in domestic affairs, and the advancement of shared interests. Those who hold this view acknowledge the animosity and historical grievances between the two countries but argue that it is possible to normalize their relations. The second school is more pessimistic. It deeply distrusts the United States and believes that Washington is neither ready nor committed to solving the disputes between the two countries.

Having worked within the Iranian government for nearly 30 years, and having sat on the secretariat of Iran's Supreme National Security Council for much of the decade before 2005, I was involved in discussions about both of these two approaches. My first personal experience in these matters dates to the late 1980s, when the critical issue facing the United States and Europe was the release of Western hostages in Lebanon. During that period, Iran received dozens of messages from Washington proposing that each side, echoing U.S. President George H. W. Bush's 1989 inaugural address, show "goodwill for goodwill."

That year, Bush offered then Iranian President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani a deal: If Iran assisted in securing the release of U.S. and Western hostages in Lebanon, the United States would respond with a gesture of its own. In response, Tehran emphasized its expectation that the United States would unfreeze and return billions of dollars in Iranian assets that were being held in the United States. The Iranian leadership also came away from discussions believing that Israel would reciprocate by releasing some Lebanese hostages, specifically Sheikh Abdul Karim Obeid, the leader of Hezbollah.

Then the two schools of thought came into play. Rafsanjani believed that this deal could be a confidence-building measure that would lead to rapprochement with the United States. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, warned against trusting the United States and thought it naive to expect Washington to repay Tehran's efforts in kind. Then, as now, he believes that the United States is after nothing less in Iran than regime change. Ultimately, Iran decided to play a key role in securing the release of all Western hostages in Lebanon. But the United States neither released Iranian assets nor facilitated the release of Lebanese hostages.

Despite the affront, in subsequent years, Ayatollah Khamenei did not prevent Rafsanjani or, later, President Muhammad Khatami, from making more overtures to the West. In 1997, for example, Iran ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention, an agreement to decommission all chemical weapons by 2012. The same year, it also joined the Biological Weapons Convention. After 2001, Iran helped the United States oust the Taliban from much of Afghanistan, and for 20 consecutive months, between 2003 and 2005, it cooperated with the International Atomic Energy Agency. As the IAEA requested, the government opened various military facilities to inspections, suspended its enrichment activities, and implemented the Additional Protocol.

Although Iran expected that these gestures would open the way for it to continue a nuclear program (which it is authorized to do as a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty), the United States and the West simply developed a new set of complaints against Iran. These included questions about Iran's nuclear-related program, its intentions toward Israel, and its hostility toward the U.S. military role in the region, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan. Rather than reward Iran for cooperation, the United States implemented new sanctions and worked to increase international pressure on Tehran.

Ayatollah Khamenei was not surprised by Washington's behavior. Throughout this time, he routinely rejected direct talks with the United States aimed at a rapprochement. He argued that the United States wanted to negotiate from a position of strength; accordingly, it employed intimidation, pressure, and sanctions to bully Iran into submission. The West's increasingly hostile reactions to what Iran's leaders believed were moderate policies eventually gave the radicals the upper hand in domestic policies. And that ultimately led to the rise of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Looking back, it is difficult to list all of the steps that each side might have taken to reverse the downward spiral in relations that followed. Certainly, the West, the United States in particular, missed great opportunities during the moderate presidencies of Rafsanjani and Khatami. More certainly, both sides would have needed a stronger commitment to changing the direction of U.S.-Iran relations.

U.S. President Barack Obama's inauguration offered an opportunity for a new beginning. And once in office, he immediately signaled his willingness to enter into a dialogue with the Islamic Republic on a wide range of issues, aiming to remove 30 years of hostilities and create "constructive ties" between the two countries. In my view, even though the Iranian leadership was still skeptical about Obama's ability to break many long-standing U.S. policies, it believed in his personal intentions. For that reason, Iran's leaders decided to test the possibility of a breakthrough by granting a freer hand to Ahmadinejad in managing the relationship with Washington.

To be sure, much of Ahmadinejad's rhetoric about the relationship was harsh. But Iran made some unprecedented overtures as well. As Mohamed El Baradei, the former director of the IAEA, revealed in his memoir, Ahmadinejad sent a message in 2009 through him offering Obama a grand bargain. According to El Baradei, the Iranian president expressed a desire for direct talks with the United States, which would lead to bilateral negotiations, without preconditions. The talks would be held on the basis of mutual respect, and Iran would agree to help the United States in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Obama did not respond.

Almost all Westerners blame Tehran for the decline in relations since. They point to the failure of an initiative to swap Iran's highly enriched uranium for less-enriched fuel rods, which Russia and the United States proposed in Geneva in October 2009. A short time after that meeting, the Iranian government told El Baradei that Tehran would be willing to make the deal directly with the United States. Washington rejected the offer. Iran subsequently signed a similar agreement with Brazil and Turkey. That could have been an important confidence-building measure, but the United States rejected it, too.

In December 2010, the United States demonstrated for the first time a readiness to recognize Iran's legitimate right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. In an interview [1] with the BBC, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that Iran could enrich uranium once it demonstrated that it could do so in a responsible manner in accordance with its international obligations. In response, Iran made new overtures toward the United States. A reliable source told me that, during a February 2011 conference in Sweden, Iran's deputy foreign minister extended an official invitation to Marc Grossman, the U.S. special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, to visit Iran for talks on cooperation in Afghanistan. Washington dismissed the offer.

Then, in October 2011, Iran invited an IAEA team, led by Deputy Director General Herman Nackaerts, to visit the research-and- development sections of its heavy-water and centrifuge facilities. A contact told me that during the visit, Fereydoon Abbasi-Davani, the head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, offered a blank check to the IAEA, granting full transparency, openness to inspections, and cooperation with the IAEA. He also informed [2] Nackaerts of Iran's receptiveness to putting the country's nuclear program under "full IAEA supervision," including implementing the Additional Protocol for five years, provided that sanctions against Iran were lifted.

Trying to make Iran's good intentions clearer, during a trip to New York in September 2011, Ahmadinejad announced that two American hikers who were being held in Iranian custody would be released. He signaled Iran's readiness to stop uranium enrichment to 20 percent if the United States gave the country fuel rods for the Tehran Research Reactor in return. This was an immensely important move to satisfy some of the West's demands and demonstrate that Iran is not seeking highly enriched uranium.

But the United States responded negatively again. Washington accused Tehran of plotting to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States. It also influenced [3] the substance and tone of the IAEA's November report on Iran by adding accusations of possible military dimensions to the country's nuclear program. Last month, Washington sanctioned the Central Bank of Iran; in effect, placed an oil embargo on the country; sponsored a UN resolution against Iran on terrorism; and orchestrated a UN resolution condemning Iran on human rights.

Explaining his Iran policy in New York in January, Obama proudly announced that he had mobilized the world and built an "unprecedented" sanctions regime targeting Iran. Obama said U.S.-led sanctions had reduced Iran's economy to "shambles [4]." Three short years after the Obama administration introduced an engagement policy, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta named Iran a "pariah state," reminding many of the previous administration's branding of Iran as part of the "axis of evil." Panetta noted [5] that he hoped Obama's new policy would weaken the regime so that "they have to make a decision about whether they continue to be a pariah or whether they decide to join the international community."

These statements are clear evidence that Obama's engagement policy has failed. In fact, they support Ayatollah Khamenei's assessment that the core goal of U.S. policy is regime change. The door to rapprochement is closing. To keep it from slamming shut, the United States should declare, without condition, that it does not seek regime change in Tehran. Beyond that, the recognition of several principles is essential to bettering U.S.-Iranian relations after more than 30 bad years. For starters, both governments should practice patience and try to show mutual goodwill.

For one, both the United States and Iran are eager to understand the other's end game. Together, the two countries should draft a "grand agenda," which would include nuclear and all other bilateral, international, and regional issues to be discussed; outline what the ultimate goal will be; and describe what each side can gain by achieving it.

The United States and Iran should also work together on establishing security and stability in Afghanistan and preventing the Taliban's full return to power; securing and stabilizing Iraq; creating a Persian Gulf body to ensure regional stability; cooperating during accidents and emergencies at sea, ensuring freedom of navigation, and fighting piracy; encouraging development in Central Asia and the Caucasus; establishing a joint working group for combating the spread of weapons of mass destruction, terrorism; and eliminating weapons of mass destruction and drug trafficking in the Middle East. Finally, the two countries could do much good by strengthening the ties between their people through tourism, promoting academic and cultural exchanges, and facilitating visas.

It would be misguided for the United States to count on exploiting possible cleavages within the Iranian leadership. Iran's prominent politicians have their differences -- like those in all countries -- but they will be united against foreign interference and aggression. Both capitals should also progressively reduce threat-making, hostile behavior, and punitive measures during engagement to prove that they seek a healthier relationship. Engagement policy should be accompanied by actual positive actions, not just words.

I know enough about the dangers involved in the current direction of U.S. and Iranian policies to believe that change is essential. There is a peaceful path -- one that will satisfy both Iranian and U.S. objectives while respecting Iran's legitimate nuclear rights. Washington and Tehran must find that right path together, and, despite what passes for debate in the international arena today, I believe they can.

.


.
Hoosiernorm
Posts: 2206
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2011 7:59 pm

Re: The Iran Thread

Post by Hoosiernorm »

http://tehrantimes.com/politics/95340-i ... ts-report-
Israel’s secret service is training Iranian dissidents linked to the terrorist Mojahedin Khalq Organization to assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists, NBC News reported Thursday.
What's weird about this story is that they are quoting Newsmax which is a really right wing pro zionist web site. I of course read newsmax because I am also a right wing pro zionist, but it's odd that they use a web site that coincides with their world view of who their enemy is. This of course leaves them vulnerable to interpret the intentions of internal threats whether they be the MKO or Mossad. They have created a mind cage that makes them a slave to interpretation.
Been busy doing stuff
AzariLoveIran

Re: The Iran Thread

Post by AzariLoveIran »

.

Something weird is happening

Sunday Times reporting , Mossad is using our beloved "Shirvan & Arran" territory, to attack and kill Iranian scientists

Weird part is that Sunday Times & Washington Post reporting this

Ilham (Aliyev), you getting this ?

well, Ilham, time to go

Iran might give Ilham a pushing hand

"Anschluss"

Baku, here we come
.
The Treaty of Gulistan (Russian: Гюлистанский договор; Persian: عهدنامه گلستان) was a peace treaty concluded between Imperial Russia and Persia on 24 October 1813 in the village of Gulistan (in modern-day Goranboy Rayon of Azerbaijan) as a result of the first Russo-Persian War. The peace negotiations were precipitated by Lankaran's fall to Gen. Pyotr Kotlyarevsky on 1 January 1813.

The treaty confirmed inclusion of modern day Azerbaijan, Daghestan and Eastern Georgia into the Russian Empire.

The text was prepared by the British diplomat Sir Gore Ouseley who served as the mediator and wielded great influence at the Persian court. It was signed by Nikolai Fyodorovich Rtischev from the Russian side and Mirza Abol Hasan Khan Ilchi from the Iranian side.
.
you guys behave

Sarko, you wanna a squeeze ? what about cutting 1.2 million barrels a day Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan pipeline for a few months :)

.
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: The Iran Thread

Post by Ibrahim »

http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/i ... QZ20120213

Well they are still ramping up their case. I'm now starting to expect to see some kind of air strikes before summer, though a ground invasion is literally impossible.
AzariLoveIran

Re: The Iran Thread

Post by AzariLoveIran »

Ibrahim wrote:.
I'm now starting to expect to see some kind of air strikes before summer ...
.

Dont worry .. :lol: .. be happy

.
Germany’s Defense Minister, Thomas de Maizière, warned on Sunday against an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

In an interview with the German daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Maizière said he believes an Israeli attack on Iran is unlikely to achieve its goals, adding that such an attack may have severe political consequences for all countries involved.
.

Everybody relaaax .. BiBi all hot air

Ahmadinejat no playin with "Baby Satan" .. he aiming @ Dadi Satan

.
User avatar
Alexis
Posts: 1305
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: The Iran Thread

Post by Alexis »

AzariLoveIran wrote:Iran might give Ilham a pushing hand

"Anschluss"

Baku, here we come

(...)

The treaty confirmed inclusion of modern day Azerbaijan, Daghestan and Eastern Georgia into the Russian Empire.
Such "Azerbaijan Anschluss" ideas fly in the face of two realities:
- Iranian Army having only small armored forces
- Russia having very significant, battle-hardened armored forces, and a demonstrated will to use them when provoked. Ask Georgia's Saakashvili about it :-D

If Iranian government was foolish enough to attack Azerbaijan, two things would happen:
- They would get their back part handed to them by the Russian Army
- Israeli and American leaderships would be in serious danger of dying by laughter !
Post Reply