« Who wrote Trump's de-certification speech? Part 1 | Main | Decision time in Deir Ezzor - TTG »

13 October 2017


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Well said IMO JCPOA is meaningless and not necessary without US participation, as Babak says the ceasefire was between US and Iran, is the US' secondary sanctions that will affect the EU trade with Iran, Chinese or Russians have no sanctions against Iran so why should it matter if they stay or leave, is the US' secondary banking sanctions which the non sovereign europe must follow if they don't one to pay billions in fines. Therefore if US for any reason is not in the deal Europe will have to follow which makes the deal dead. Iran, Russia and China don't need to have a ceasefire deal among themselves. At the end of the day Europe ends up paying the biggest economic prize, and I don't think leaving the deal makes much effect on Iran and it's economy that is, since economic effects of JCPOA never came to be fully implemented in Iran, especially the banking part.


From what I read in Iranian news sites, this did not make much of worry or a shock. Sounds like this was very much anticipated by the government and the financial sector, as matter of fact according to news sites, price of US dollar dropped, and Iran's markets had some gain in their indexes.


Mike can you also name a few of Iranian grievances with past US actions ? if not you should read Rouhani's
yesterday speech in reply to president Trump's on decertifying JCPOA . if you don't remember them I can have them listed.


Babak, check again, Indeed I did say IMO


Please explain what you mean by "prior bad blood" between Russia and Syria. There must be something I am missing.
Russia has had a naval base in Syria for a long time. There are more Syrians married to Russians than to any other nationality.


kooshy...Yes, the President and Congress are supposed to act/represent "in the national interest." OUR nation. Not Israel's interest. Ours. I hope someone in the GOP remembers this in time.


My mistake? What was pretty clear is that Hillary was advocating war with
Russia. Did you pay any attention that Hillary was pushing for a no fly zone over Syria? There were Russian aircraft over Syria. Hillary if president would be pushing for war with the Russian airforce over Syria. Nope silly fool, we are better off with Trump.


Kooshy -

I know there are grievances on both sides. IMO they should be put aside by each. We don't have to be friends. But why should we be enemies over past differences. Are Americans and Iranians that vengeful? Unfortunately there are hardliners on both sides. Trump's latest antic will give power to the hardliners in Tehran. And that will probably give more influence here in this country to our hardliners. It is a vicious circle.

PS - You never explained the meaning of the expression '... you bot well...' What does it mean?


NancyK -

Let him blather. No amount of discussion will change closed minds.


Christian Chuba,

Perhaps Iran could 20 year lease an island in the Iran Bay to Russia at which point it would not be (temporarily) Iranian territory. I agree that would be a very difficult step to take, but I would argue that depends on the geopolitics, and stranger things have happened.

I was referencing using Russian EW technology to electronically blind (including leo orbit US satellites) a large-scale US airborne attack on Iran, which would have to be launched from over the horizon since aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf are sitting ducks and its a thousand kilometers from UAE to Tehran.


The convergence: https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/10/14/unraveling-americanrussian-relations-paul-craig-roberts/
"As Alain of Lille said as long ago as the 12th century, “not God, not Caesar, but money is all.”



The revisionist history they are putting out now serves as fine distractions to the Je Suis Harvey politicians and entertainers now running as fast from the sexual predator as possible. Hilary would have intervened in Syria and lord only knows what she would have given up to Kim Jong-Un.



It's a shame those 53.9% didn't read the Constitution or have any better understanding of it than Hilary's or her campaign staff, otherwise they would understand why the electoral college exists.


It most likely predates this.

I recall being harangued by a largely pro western Iranian refugee from the Khomeini regime circa 1981/2 in Oxford about my personal responsibility for this baby:


(Disclaimer: around that time my grandparents were eking out a living from a smallholding in Ireland and doing seasonal harvest work for bigger farmers in Scotland).

Christian Chuba

ISL, I understand that you were just pointing out some areas where Russia and Iran might collaborate on common defense. I only mentioned the military base thing because I was surprised to learn how sensitive Iran was regarding this issue, more so than most countries.

When Russia had a minor arrangement with Iran just to let their planes land and refuel in their country so that they could carry out operations in Syria, they made the mistake of calling it a 'base'. Iran promptly rescinded the agreement. They allowed operations again at a later date but lesson learned, don't say you have a military base in Iran. This sensitivity surprised me. A Neocon writer clucked that this could be used to drive a wedge between Iran and Russia and mentioned the Iranian Constitution, I double checked, and for once a neocon was correct.

Article 146 [No Foreign Military Bases "...[F]oreign military bases in Iran, even for peaceful purposes, is forbidden."

This tells me that Iranians are very sensitive around issues regarding national sovereignty.
If we stir up trouble by trying to install MEK, regardless of how they feel about their govt, they won't greet us as liberators.


Iranian Gov. Military already got in lot of trouble criticism this year for allowing Russian planes to refuel in way to Syria. Iranian Constitution is very restrict and clear allowing/leasing any foreign military on Iranian soil. IMO, in subconscious fiercely nationalistic and very proud mentality of Iranians, having a foreign military based in Iran means/equates to Iran incapable of defending herself.


Iran has a national holiday: "Death to America" day.

Babak Makkinejad

You are lying.

Pacifica Advocate

>>>No amount of discussion will change closed minds.

This is far more apropos of you and NancyK than it is of ToiVos.

Look at H. Clinton's war record as Sec. of State. Look at how many "successes" and "failures" she had. Look at how many successes she claimed. Look at who, in her D.C. entourage, profited from it--and how much.

Then, carefully review her rhetoric regarding Syria and the no-fly-zone even before the campaign officially began. The "no-fly zone" policy was clearly stated, and logged as an "official protest" against Obama.

So I'll be curious to hear what your opinions are on Ms. Clinton after you bother with taking a close, careful review of her record on Honduras (a blatantly illegal coup which she protected and personally provided legal representation for), Libya (a war that was almost entirely initiated through her own backroom shenanigans: Obama didn't want to go in, and initially refused to approve it), Egypt, Lebanon (how many cluster bombs did we ship special-order to Israel in the closing days of that war? Do you remember what they were used for?), Syria, and of course, Ukraine--were you aware that Vicky "Fuck the EU" Nuland was Ms. Clinton's fixer, there?

If, after reminding yourself of all the war-news you chose to ignore during that period, you can seriously make the argument that her "no-fly zone" wasn't a sincere commitment to a policy direction then I'll be very interested to learn what your logic is based on--because it certainly won't be her record as Sec. of State.

Pacifica Advocate

Hillary Clinton was also pushing for direct conflict with Iran.

Ms. Clinton's position on Iran was essentially the same as Trump's:


And of course, throughout her political lifetime she has always favored the most extremely aggressive talk of pretty much any politician out there, when it comes to Iran. Just for fun, read on through to the end and count the number of contradictions this article implies about Clinton's own position vis a vis her criticisms of Obama--on the one hand, she prances around throwing out the word "obliterate" on behalf of her Israeli backers, and on the other hand she chastises Obama for suggesting that it might be a good idea to take out important people in the pro-terrorist Taliban junta that hides amongst the Pakistanis--obviously, in service to her Saudi backers, there.

She should've done us all a favor and just put a big "FOR SALE!" sign up, with a list of races and ethnicities that will be forbidden service. Perhaps if she'd been honest enough to do that, she'd've gotten elected.


Babak Makkinejad -

Looks like Britain and Germany are staying with JCPOA. Good for them IMO for standing up to Trump. Looks like Oilman and Bandolero and others here were correct in there assessment.


But even if the EU had knuckled under to the knucklehead, Tehran still would have had China, Russia, Turkey, Iraq, India and others. So any sanctions would have been useless and self defeating for the US and EU.


Pacifica -

I have admired many of your comments here in the past. Excepting your politics I should have said. Clinton favored JCPOA. That is a matter of public record. No-one disputes that except perhaps for her political enemies. First they called her an appease-nik for supporting it. Now they claim she never supported it.

Libya was done by Obama at the behest of the Europeans. Did Clinton speak out against it? No, but neither did Trump. As a matter of fact he was for it, big time, despite lying about his support for it during the GOP primary:

As for Clinton's call for a no-fly-zone, Trump right now has a no-fly-zone in northern Syria. They just call it by a different name - de-escalation lines or zones instead of no-fly-zones.


Fred -

Kooshy and I were not discussing the election. We were discussing whether the American people knew that Trump's arsekissing of Israel was or was not in the interest of United States.

But thanks for the Civic Education lecture.

Babak Makkinejad

Thank you for your comments.

In 2015, I thought that JCPOA had removed the major impediments for US-Iran strategic negotiations; the acceptance by the United States of all Iranian nuclear activities within NPT.

Evidently, the United States is toying with the prospect of reneging on that agreement. If that is indeed the case, then I agree with you, it is an injurious course for the United States as well as others - foes or friends of Iran or US.

Even the Arabs, now cut-off even more from the source of their culture and civilization, are not going to come out of a renewed confrontation between US and Iran, unscathed.


Mike one of my friends in France tells me, yes the Total contract may survive since it is based on Euro and Yuan,chines will do the construction parts in thier currency and French do thier part in euro. But he don’t think the Airbus deal and anything uses American tech. can not survive, if the secondary sanctions are not reintroduced.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad