« A bad day for the lobby? What a shame! | Main | 737 Max & Boeing Update, by BabelFish »

23 June 2019


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

Philippe Truze

Everybody seems satisfied with the current no-war situation. But not the Iranians, who will have to endure a situation of starvation, lack of medicines, civil strife, etc... We know how many people died during the western embargo on Irak : hundreds of thousands... Do you really think that the regime will accept this statu quo? Iran has been warning : we won't be the only ones to suffer from the interruption of oil exportations. If I had the choice between dying of starvation in silence and alone, and dying "gloriously" in the middle of an international war during which my ennemies would suffer huge losses, I wouldn't hesitate too long... especially if I am a believer, and especially if I am a Shia impregnated with the cult of martyrdom... PS : it is not being a partisan of Bibi or Bolton or Adelson to estimate that Iran has been put in such a situation that the only way out is to start a war. On the contrary. And no need to be a Trumpist to think that DT is not a partisan of the war with Iran : with body bags returning home from the US bases in Afghanistan, Irak, Gulf states, etc. Trump will loose elections at 100%. Am I wrong?


As you can see from my 2017 post linked below

Considering how long this has been the highest prized target, its no big surprise you feel it must have been 2017 when, it feels you reposted it already then ...

But yes, we should now maybe all concentrate on another perfect deal, we all should support.

On a nitwit level, I don't mind if anyone would erase us Germans completely. Let's say France or GB, Russians, arbitrarily, in revenge. This is only semi-ironical, and maybe a bit egoistic. Après moi la déluge. But the idea that Iran cannot be allowed to study matters, since its a theocracy ..., makes me really mad. ...

Is there some type of UN institution that regulates what people can and cannot study? Based on what precise "scientific expertise" about Asians, Africans, American, Europeans and their more or less more dangerous sub-clusters?

Oscar Peterson

I agree. The point here is not primarily--or perhaps not at all--about nuclear weapons. It's about the potential of Iran for regional leadership and the fear this strikes in both the Israelis and the Saudis. For Israel to break out of its isolation and assume a dominant cultural and economic role in the region, all the leading Muslim states must be utterly subjugated. This has already happened to the hapless Arabs--even to the Saudis although they are probably too dumb to realize it. But the challenge posed by Iran--and also Turkey--is of an entirely different order. The leadership potential of Iran has been contained for decades, and now a containment effort against nominal ally Turkey is under way as well. All you have to do is break with Israel and then all the knives come out, one by one.


I agree that the main issue is Iranian leadership in the region, which, if tacitly accepted, would relegate Israel to the status of an enclave on the Mediterranean coast. But I think you are far too cavalier in your dismissal of the issue of whether or not the Iranians even seek a deliverable nuclear weapon or if the village pitchman is chasing a ch9mera that is basically an illusion.

Oscar Peterson

One dimension of recent Iranian history that bears on Iran-WMD issues and unsurprisingly gets not coverage in the US is its refusal to use chemical weapons in response to the massive Iraqi employment of them during the 1980s--first against military forces and then towards the end even apparently against civilian targets.

I'm not aware that there has ever been a similar refusal to "fight fire with fire" and the Khomenini's religious-based refusal to grant authority to employ CW is pretty amazing. What happened in the 1980s is not guarantee of behavior going forward, but this example deserves at the very least to be kept in mind rather than sent down the memory hole as our Israel-subservient media insists on doing.


We are the "shining city on a hill." Don't you understand that this is our manifest destiny?



"The lot?" You mean the thousands of people laboring in the vineyards or just their bootlicking bosses? Yes, I was seven years retired completely from hovernment or association with it when 9/11 occurred, but, you still managed to try to pin those messes on me by association.

Dave Schuler

Can someone please explain something to me? It's a sincere request.

I have never understood the JCPOA. I am convinced that Iran DOES NOT have a nuclear weapons development program and has not had since 2003, as described in the body of the post. Doesn't the JCPOA assume that Iran HAS (or at least had) a nuclear weapons development program? But if it has or had one, then it's a secret one. If it's a secret one how is the JCPOA supposed to prevent it?

In other words the JCPOA is only useful if it's useless. It's just too complicated for me.

Oscar Peterson

PL (Turcopolier),

I don't dismiss the question. I just don't believe that that issue is really driving the relentless attempt at regime change.

But as you have pointed out in any case, the IC doesn't support the claims that they have pursued a weapons program since 2003. And I think that the secretive behavior the Iranians undertook prior to that after we prevented them from acquiring enriched uranium and other items necessary for a nuclear power program has been used erroneously or deliberately to sell the idea of an Iranian quest of nuclear weapons. I imagine that Iran has wanted, like Japan, to have the basic knowledge and expertise to show that they could go further if they wanted to, but I can certainly live with that.

What do you think of Gareth Porter's book, Manufactured Crisis?



"Would anyone in the Iranian govt violate the fatwa?" I think not. Your familial prejudice against Muslims should not make you think them unprincipled. You should all realize that in arguing with each other over how long from "breakout" to a deliverable waepon you are making the Ziocon case.


must have been 2017

should have been 2016 as anyone can see.

City on the hill? How should I relate that Philo- vs Anti-Americans?

Christian J Chuba

Does the JCPOA in and of itself declare guilt?

Short answer: no. I'd call it a trust building measure.

Iran starts to contract for nuclear power, we use our power and influence to sabotage most or all of those deals. Iran comes to the conclusion that they need to be able to produce their own fuel and have as much of their infrastructure in house as they possibly can. They build some bomb proof underground facilities without declaring it to the IAEA (I'd do the same thing). They say, we don't have to declare it until it's operational, the U.S. says, aha, this is proof that Iran wants to develop nuclear weapons. There are technical disputes over what the what the non-proliferation act specifically requires. There are many other disputes of this nature between the U.S. and Iran.

The core conflict is that we'd prefer that Iran have no nuclear technology whatsoever but Iran insists that they must be able to enrich their own fuel. The JCPOA is developed as a trust building mechanism to ensure that Iran's nuclear program remains for peaceful, civilian use. Iran agrees to some very stringent requirements for 10yrs in order to get back their frozen assets.

BTW having Ahmadinejad as President during those early years did not help Iran's PR efforts, whew, lunatic.

This subject can get very unwieldy, I'm trying my best to summarize it. Many important details left out.

Oscar Peterson

"US intelligence" is not trying to "overthrow the 2016 election." The attempt to nullify the election is a political campaign outside the IC. The IC allowed itself to be dragged into a brawl between competing power factions. I agree that bumbling leaders like Comey, McCabe, Brennen and Clapper are unimpressive, and there were some outliers like Strzok, but I don't agree that Iran/WMD analysts have had any reason to undersell the Iran threat (unlike the overselling of the Iraq threat under intense political pressure post-9/11.) The political pressure still favors overselling--not underselling.

And if we don't go with their assessments, whose should we go with? Some foreign intelligence agencies and governments who are no doubt disinterested and have only our welfare at heart?

In the matter of supposed Iranian nuclear weapons, I wonder who benefits from discrediting IC assessments that Iran has not pursued nuclear weapons since (at the latest) 2003. Hmmm--let's see--who is desperate to justify a pretext for regime change in Iran and who can impose relentless political pressure in DC to realize its aims?

Yes, there has been a campaign to nullify the 2016 election. But I think there is also a second and separate campaign to alienate Trump and his supporters from the IC in order to steamroller or evade their inconvenient intelligence assessment. Again, cui bono?


IZ, congratulations to Turkey for the Istanbul vote.
be well

Barbara Ann


No need to "guess":


ted richard

ding ding ding!

you've won the daily double!

indeed lack of control is the bete noire for americans and their european allies.

they could care less what happens to the people as long as the real estate (russias soft underbelly) and """resources""" are neatly portfolioed under western banking control.

nuclear weapons are merely how this scam is being sold to the peasants........that's you and i by the way in case you mistakenly thought you were a sovereign citizen as our founding documents specify.

Eric Newhill

I am making a major effort to avoid allowing my familial prejudice to not enter into my understanding of all of this. Hence a sincere question about the fatwa - and I accept your answer.

I am inclined to think that this conflict is more about Iran's conventional capabilities and its ambitions in the region as they relate to both Israel and the Arabs. As already mentioned, the nuclear issue is propaganda to package and sell those perceived threats to the rest of us.

Israel and the Saudis/Gulfies seem to have arrived at a peaceful arrangement. Iran seeks to disrupt that. Should Iran be allowed to that? Personally, I don't care if they all kill each other. However, the impact on global markets could be extremely negative and that does impact me and you.

Furthermore, for those who take a social justice view, I do think that Israel's position gets dismissed too easily. Where are Jews to live as Jews if Israel doesn't exist? Surely, if Muslims were given everything they want in Israel, they'd eventually vote the Jews down and out. It would be like what has happened with liberals and Hispanics in CA. Europe has always been perennially plagued by pogroms and it's not getting any better. I can understand the Israeli position better than many here. Whereas what is Iran's main gripe other than getting to be the dominators in the Islamic world? Just analyzing; not advocating.


I agree with you and apologize for not being clearer. I don't think that the Iranian government has a weapons program that includes nuclear capabilities strictly defined, ie an ability to get into production nuclear war heads even within a matter of years. I understand that to be the view of our intelligence community and I am not aware of any reason to challenge their view, least of all on the basis of anything coming from Bolton, Pompeo, Bibi.
I was referring to weapons programs designed to develop conventual weapons of waging war, offensive and defensive.
But whether Iran will continue its policy of desisting from developing nuclear weapons in the face of suffocating sanctions, to hazard a guess right now, I would say that as of today there are more voices in Iran arguing for a nuclear program than there were before Trump's policy by tweet amped up the mutual belligerence.
Likewise, I have no idea what makes Trump think that forcing foreign governments onto the knife edge of crisis can only result in capitulation without resistance and on our terms. Eventually there will come a break to the bad and if the Democrats can find a candidate a tad more palatable than La Clinton, it's going to cost him the election. Preventing another 4 to 8 years of progressive rule from Washington concerns me a lot more than Trump's fatuous attempts to resolve 40+ years of hostility with Iran on terms satisfactory to Israel.



What would "progressevive" rule in Washington be for you? Government control of the means of production, finance and distribution?



There are numerous places in Europe, Oceana and N. America where Jews can live as Jews.


My apologies to the committee for also going off topic - but this is fascinating. Could it be that this is how the Idlib situation is going to be resolved? It sounds to me that if Tayyip is to survive he will need to agree to become a vassal of either the US or Russia.



It is your misfortune that you are trapped in a world in which the strongest power is obsessed with such an idea. As the English here have reminded us the US is the only place in the world where the nuttiness of 17th Century Puritansism survives as a major factor in governance.

Oscar Peterson

Agree on the absurdity. How did it become our job to ensure an Israeli regional monopoly of every category of advanced weapon? Hell, the Jericho III falls in the ICBM range. Why does Israel need that?


".........but, you still managed to try to pin those messes on me by association."
Not at all.
I am advocating strong skepticism of anything that comes out of the IC, as they seem to have become agenda driven and political.
As for 9/11, no one was held accountable, much less fired.


Stephen Walt has a realpolitik suggestion set for President Trump on Iran policy. I agree with him that America First means getting the US out of the hegemony business in the ME. We don't need another multi-trillion dollar quagmire.

"..your entire approach to the Middle East is based on the mistaken belief that a combination of unconditional support for familiar U.S. partners (Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the Gulf states, etc.) and unrelenting hostility to long-standing adversaries like Iran is the path to success. But here’s what your advisors aren’t telling you: Just as you like to say that you’ll always put U.S. interests first, America’s so-called friends in the region are out for themselves too. That’s why the country’s current partners (and their supporters or paid lobbyists in the United States) are happy to watch America confront Iran while they look on from the sidelines."


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