US Troops Leaving Iraq Restationed in 10 Countries surrounding Iran


by ayatoilet1

The U.S. defence budget should have tipped you off. $650 Billion dollars for next year. What?? $650 Billion!! At a time of massive cuts in government spending, huge pressure to reduce the budget deficit, reduce government borrowing ...To give you an idea, before the Iraq war in 2000, (Clinton's era), the US defence budget was $200 Billion. Even after inflation, $650 Billion is a lot. In fact its more than the whole rest of the world combined!!! Having said that, the U.S. defence budget did swell to almost $1 trillion dollars during the height of the war - but $650 Billion is a lot.

Well, yes, there is a NATO operation in Afghanistan, and the "surge" is supposed to end this year...and there is the odd newspaper article that details rumours of a peace deal with the Taliban in progress.  But this is a NATO operation led by the U.S. And there really isn't the same scale of war and insurgency that U.S. witnessed in Iraq.

So what's up? I find all this stuff fascinating. Let me share what I have found out with you.

Well, the U.S. is 'strangling' Iran. Just like Iran had done everything but build a bomb (I call this abb = all but bomb); the U.S. is doing everything except fighting a conventional war with Iran (I call this abw = all but war). If you want to understand what ABW means note the following (from different press articles):

1) Turkey: Washington and other NATO partners have a "secret training camp" at America's Incirlik, Turkey air base. In April, it began "organiz(ing) and expand(ing)" Syrian disidents. NATO forces are also training Turkish troops for a possible Syria strike.

2) Jordan: In addition, US forces from Iraq's Ain al-Assad base were transferred to Jordan on December 8 instead of returning home.

3) Persian Gulf: There are much larger force contingents now in Kuwait, and expanded ties with Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE and Oman. i.e. greater overall regional footprint to establish an enhanced "security architecture" to integrate air, ground, and naval units for future combat missions. And a report, confirmed by the Pentagon, that 11 warships had sailed through the Suez Canal, heading for the Persian Gulf, raising alarm bells.

4) Azerbaijan: Azerbaijan has been granted a NATO Individual Partnership Action Plan as have other former Soviet states like Georgia, Ukraine and lately Moldova. In January Azerbaijan hosted a planning conference for the NATO Regional Response 2010 military exercise. Also recently, "A Regional Response military training was held within the NATO's Partnership for Peace (PfP) programme in Baku. "Commander of US Land Forces in Europe Carter Ham participated in the training."

5) Turkmenistan: The last year advanced military cooperation with Turkmenistan. An independent Caspian news agency has confirmed unusually heavy activity of American troops along the border with Iran. The Iranian Revolutionary Guards' Brigadier General Mehdi Moini said last week that his forces increased patrols, including tanks and anti-aircraft units, along the border with Azerbaijan because they noticed increased American activity. Iranians also charged that Israeli forces were also present, sparking a virtual war alert among the Iranian Guards. 6) Afghanistan: To Iran's east, the U.S. and NATO will soon have over 150,000 troops, and according to a recent study 400 bases, in Afghanistan and both Western belligerents are coordinating military actions with Pakistan, the Alliance through the Trilateral Afghanistan-Pakistan-NATO Military Commission.

7) Iraq: Even though U.S. forces have officially withdrawn from Iraq, they leave behind NOT one but trained armies inside Iraq. One army, the regular army, answers to the Shiite government in power now. But there is another army the KDF (Peshmerga) i.e. Kurdish Defense Forces.It is estimated that as of January, 2005 there were 180,000 Peshmerga fighters in Iraqi Kurdistan. Newer articles estimates their number to be 270,000 A recent CBS News reports places their number at 375,000. With such a huge force at the beckon call of the U.S., why is there a need for American soldiers to put their own lives at risk inside Iraq? No wonder Iraq's Kurdistan is very safe and stable! But why do they need such a huge defense force there?

In essence, the chain is being tightened around Iran from every direction. Iran is literally surrounded by American troops or American Troop equivalents. In addition, the Times of London reported earlier this month that Saudi Arabia has agreed to open its air space for Israel Air Force jets, a claim that the Saudi monarchy denied. It similar denied Iranian news agency claims that Israeli helicopters unloaded military equipment at a northwestern Saudi Arabian air base, from where Israeli planes theoretically could reach Iran in the shorts possible time.

Several defense websites have reported that Israel is deploying one to three German-made nuclear submarines in the Persian Gulf as a defensive measure against the possibility of a missile attacks from Lebanon and Syria, as well as Iran. “The submarines of Flotilla 7 — Dolphin, Tekuma and Leviathan — have visited the Gulf before,” DeHaemer wrote, “but the decision has now been taken to ensure a permanent presence of at least one of the vessels.”


Recently by ayatoilet1CommentsDate
Keep Boycotting BP
Dec 01, 2012
The War on Oil – Part 2
Nov 30, 2012
The War on Oil – Part 1
Nov 30, 2012
more from ayatoilet1
Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Role of America

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on


Nobody is omnipotent. America; Britain and various nations have goals and often try. Many do conspiracies but it takes a lot for it to work. America withdrew support for Shah but we did not have to pick Khomeini

There is ample proof that USA and Britain were involved in the 1953 operations. But without Iranian support it would not have happened. Same for 1979 except we have less solid proof of their involvement.

I get tired of people who blame everything on America. It takes away responsibility and demoralizes people.  I suggest we realize others will interfere but not put all the blame on them; it is a cop out and a way to pass the buck.


2 myths

by Fesenjoon2 on

MYTH 1: The Americans/British brought down Mossadegh.

Fact: Not exactly. There was a huge faction in the Majles, headed by Ayatollah Kashani (the Islamists), that was also bitterly opposed to Mossadegh and didnt care 2 cents about him. The Islamists always hated Mosaddegh. Ever wondered why IRI has tried many times taking out 29 Esfand as a national holiday?  

MYTH 2:  The Americans put the Mullahs in power.

Fact: Whenever you want to think such things, take a good look at these people.


I especially like the woman in boots:


You give too much credit to Americans. They do not have mind control technology yet. 


Response To Ayatoilet

by FG on

RE: I do not want Iran broken up, and 3000 years of heritage destroyed.

Nor do I though if anyone can encourage centrifugal tendencies by persecutiong minorities it is this regime.   Like the ethnic majority, they too can have their nationalism fired up and turned to extremism.

RE:  I do
not want foreign forces destroying Iran

Nor do I, especially if you refer to an invasion of the sort the neo-cons favor.  However, what would you say if protests start again and if most Iranians find themselves in the position of Syrians today.   If Iranians then plead for intervention to prevent slaughter, what should the US and the West do?   And what if the West refuses to intervene from fear of being accused of interventionism by Iranian nationalists.  It seems we could be stuck in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" predicament.  

I suspect we'd act and yes it would be for BOTH humanitarian reasons and national security which--in an extended and enlightened sense--includes stability in the Middle East (sometimes US interests and local interests CAN coincide.  Also, why do anti-western zealots assume humanitarian motives are incompatible with self-interested motives.  When both exist, motivation is strongest.

RE: If foreign forces really want to
help Iran and Iranians - they should TRULY support the people of Iran in
their quest for change...not secretly deal with the regime, or fool the
world with silly sanctions.

Many Iranians favor sanctions if sactions can bring down the regime.  An oil boycott, though it would hurt the average Iranian, might do so within a relatively short time.  Is sanctions helped bring down the regime prematuraly and even prevented a civil war or lessened its duration, I suspect most Iranians would favor them though you may not.

RE: If you want to destroy Iran, control Oil - just say

Implied but unproven: That's what we want.

The Russians and Serbs blamed oil motives in Kosovo even though Kosovo had no oil.  Did we take over Iraq's oil?  No.  Why would we take over Iran's oil (the whole world would be against us as well as the Middle East and thus the foreign policy losses would easy outnumber any economic gains) since we could buy it ANYWAY.  Note that we don't even want to buy if so long as it's the mullahs who are doing the selling even though we could benefit like China and Russia.

The oil motive is NOT overrated when it comes to assuring open access to the market wherever and whenaver a hostile government (Saddam invasion of Kuwait, Khamenei's aggressive regime now) appears to threatens access (by which I mean the right to purchase at market price as set by the forces of supply and demand).

RE:  Everyone knows who put the Mullahs in

Implied: We did (which is false). 

Real Truth: The Iranian people did on their own. They turned against the Shah for INTERNAL reasons, whatever those reasons were or whether you feel they were fair or unfair.  We did not make them do so. 

All we did was fail to intervene military to prop a leader who who was no longer wanted by the Iranian majority.  Now THAT would have been imperialism (which you say you oppose).  We went along with popular sovereignty as expressed in a fait accompli.

PS: Like the Shah in 1979, the present regime has also lost popular legitimacy especially since rigging the election and cracking down on all who objected afterwards.    

Notice how Ahmadinejad and the mullahs both make the same accusation you've made when they lose the support of the people.  Note how every dictator faced with popular uprisings does so. 

The West is responsible!  America caused it!   Did we really make the mullahs unpopular any more than we made the Shah unpopular?  Or did they  do it to themselves?

Veiled Prophet of Khorasan


by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on


My target was not you it was Islamic Republic. I did not mean you are belligerent I meant they are. Hope this makes is more obvious. If mollahs had sense they would give up. 

BTW: I want to see Iran recover lost territory including Azarbayjan. But we first need to have something to offer them better than Khamenei! For us to recover those regions we need to first get rid of the mollahs. Next get our house in order.


VPK - did U ever watch my TV show?

by ayatoilet1 on

Apparently they put on reruns of the show where I sang " ridam to dahane rahbar"! So I think my name does mean something!! I think I'll post the song on youtube...

As for the Azerbaijan article, it was sort of rhetorical. The core point of it was that all hell could break loose if Iran is attacked. It really would not be hard for the Mullahs to create real havoc. I am not really in favor of an know that.

And on the issue of creating tension, I am on record for blogging about how Iran has no business in the Middle East - that its a central asian state, and that hamas ans hezbollah have nothing to do with Iran core strategic interests. There is nothing to be gained by Iranian involvement in Lebanon ..or Israel. Those countries have nothing Iranians need.Here is a link to one of my articles on this (many months ago: 10 reasons why Iran should walk away from Hamas and Hezbollah:


So please take it easy on me!! I am not being belligerant - just stating facts (always). The people being hostile (or belligerant) are the ones issuing orders to position soldiers for war.

Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Name and war

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on


First of all name does not indicate anything. I may deliberately pick a name to throw people off my real position. By the way I am not accusing Ayatoilet of any position just a general point.

Next if you want to avoid war then be less beligerant. The American public is tired of wars. It will be a hard sale. The one way to get support for war is to do as Ayatoilet wanted with Azarbayjan. If Iran attacks and occupies them war is 100%.

USA; Nato with Turkey and Russia with its allies will all join. Iran will get the heck beaten. So if you don't want war go for dropping the tension. No attacks; drop support for Hamas and Hizbollah and stop taunting Israel.


FG: I did not forget ... I am just stating facts

by ayatoilet1 on

I ask you please to hestitate from pointing a finger to me. With a name like Ayatoilet, how can I be a fan of the mullahs? Use the space between your ears please.

I am not pumping anything up, I just like to discover & share facts  ...sometimes with humor, sometimes not. These are all facts. If you are scared by them, don't blame me.

Now, we are getting close to election season here - and I do think Iranian-Americans should know what is at stake at the polls. Its all about knowing real facts - not what fox news is feeding the public.

I do not want Iran broken up, and 3000 years of heritage destroyed. I do not want foreign forces destroying Iran - whether its Arabian Mullahs (like the Larijani's in Iran) or GI Joe from West Virgina in a hummer across the border in Turkmenistan!! If foreign forces really want to help Iran and Iranians - they should TRULY support the people of Iran in their quest for change...not secretly deal with the regime, or fool the world with silly sanctions.

To the West, I say, if you want to destroy Iran, control Oil - just say so! We don't need to play games. Everyone knows who put the Mullahs in power?!! 


To Prophet re: Preventing Damage in Iran

by FG on

In WWII, it is estimated that 22% of American casualties casualties from "friendly fire."  How many French citizens did we kill and how much French property did we damage in liberating France from German occupation? 

If we still can't avoid hitting our own troops occasionally (though less today then in the 1940's) how can any reasonable person expect us to totally avoid hitting Iranian civilians or property?  We can do much better than 65 years ago but like the French Iranians will have to take their lumps if they wish to escape "mullah occupation."  (Didn't the French cheer news of D-Day and didn't they applaud B-17s)?)

The ruling mullahs wont be alone in charging all such losses are intentional.  So will dishonest ultra-nationalists like Atoilet certain monarchists and the radical left.  All do so not out of any real concern for the victims, but in the hope that their self-interests will be advanced thereby. They know such things can't be avoided in war but they choose to pretend otherwise.

Optimum Scenario: Iran avoids civil war or it is short and quick.  The best hope there might be a successful campaign for the presidency by Khoumeini's grandson.  See what I wrote on that possibility earlier.


The best question to ask is: "Which way will the casualties be greater and more one-sided and the civil war longer? 

Consider what Saddam accomplished with helicopters alone in putting down a rebellion in Basra after the withdrawal from Kuwait.  Members of the Free Syrian Army claim that up to 70 percent of the
armed forces would defect tomorrow if the West could create a no fly
zone and would bring much of their heavy armor with them.  How much would the civil war be shortened then?  At present,
they leave armor and artillery behind or set it afire since these items are
sitting ducks for air power.

Syrian protestors were unanimous originally in opposing outside help.  What changed their mind is an experience  Iranians are most likely to enjoy without it--almost unimpeded slaughter by a coldly calculating rulers. 

Contrary to theories of regional xenophobes who hate America and the West, we aren't jumping at the chance though we'd obviously like Assad gone and the slaughter ended.  When evidence conflicts with theories, fanatics simply ignore it. (See also the humanitarian motives for intervention earlier in Kosovo and Somalia for "ignored evidence")


1. Terrain and density of population inhibit the value if a "no fly zone there and  and make civilian and property damage much harder to avoid then in Libya (thereby playing into the hands of xenophobic theorists);

2. Democratic leaders face political and economic constraints (known as free elections) that dictators like Saddam don't have to consider in going to war.  It would probably cost Obama the presidency and the Republicans would take the presidency by exploiting it (How would xenophobes and anti-neo cons like THAT consequence?) 

3. Western economic conditions are not conducive to intervention.  In the USA, political analysists say the trend as election nears in November will be the deciding factor in Obama's victory or defeat. 

4. Fear of destabilization in the region.


1. Terrain and population density may lend itself better to a no fly zone (Readers would know better than I on this one).

2. Politically intervention is easier.  Republicans who have long demanded aggressive policies against the mullahs would look hypocritical if they turned on Obama for helping.  Americans have a personal grudge with the ruling mullahs for Osama Bin Laden-style offenses (the embassy attack, the marine barracks attack, the kidnapped hitchhikerrs, the murder of US soldiers in Iraq, etc.  We owe 'em one.

3. In this case the regime's removal would be more likely to add stabity to the region rather than take it away. 

Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

America or not?

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on


I am going to do a short analysis of "cost vs. benefit" of working with USA.


  • No more sanctions.
  • No more threat of war and a lasting peace.
  • Outsourcing: of good jobs such as engineering that are going to India and China right now. Iran has many highly trained people who will get great jobs.
  • Investment: this is tied but not limited to outsourcing. Many Iranian Americans want to invest in Iran. This will allow us to do so.
  • Development of oil and gas resources.
  • Getting support in our claims on Persian Gulf resources
  • Getting support in our claims on Caspian Sea resources.
  • America stops provoking trouble with minorities.
  • Iran may get to recover lost territories specially in Afghanistan in return for replacing America as peace keeper force. After all if we annex parts of it then it will be our problem.


  • Perception of Iran being "nokar". But I will leave that to Mehrdad to give details since I will not do it justice.
  • Possible loss of sovereignty. Again I am not a good person to describe this because I do not believe it.
  • Abandoning Palestinians and other causes. This means nothing to me. But may means something to others.
  • Giving up on past grievances. Well I think that is a good thing but others may disagree.
  • America may "betray" us again. If our government is representative it does not need to be propped. Therefore this will not matter. 
  • Other demands: America demanding support of international policies. Using India as example America pays a huge bribe: why not!


VPK jaan: The feeling of respect is mutual…

by Bavafa on

So is the sensibility in carrying a civil and respectful discussion.


And despite your seemingly belief, I would be all for those you have mentioned.  But only if it is of mutual benefit to both people/nations.


History has proven, though you obviously dispute or disregard this, that America has not dealt with Iran based on mutual respect nor shows any [real] sign that has any intention of such.  

  There lies the difference in our opinion.


'Hambastegi' is the main key to victory 


Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Dear Mehrdad

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on


Yes my post is to you because you are sensible and sane. Meaning I could actually have a discussion with you. That is a very good and unfortunately rare thing.

I think I explained why I am "folding". You see we don't share the same views as much as I respect you. I don't see working with America as folding. Unlike you I welcome American investment and gladly work with them. Just as India and China do.  I believe there are vast benefits to Iran. Right now I am aware of many Iranian Americans ready to invest in Iran. It just needs cooperation with America. Result will be a huge influx of jobs and immediate improvement of life for many Iranians. These are good paying jobs with benefits and a future. I want that future and do not want to wallow in 1953 past.

Well obviously I know the "fool me" thing but over what? How is America going to "fool" Iranian? By sending jobs or by investing. I will do a cost benefit analysis in a post very soon. Please tell me what is negative in working with America.



VPK: since your comment is aimed at me…

by Bavafa on

It is of a sad note to make this observation that you cannot grasp the idea and notion that has been tried to be made here, the policies of the past continues to get applied in presence time.   The expression of “fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me” comes to mind. 

You may be an advocate of folding when the going gets tough but not all subscribe to that way of living.



'Hambastegi' is the main key to victory 


Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Oh my GOD

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on


Now back to rehashing Mossadegh. How long do we beat this dead horse. Vietnam got over its; Japan got over its but no we must dig in. Remain in 1953 for another 2000 years. God I wish Mossadegh never was.

Regarding Palestinians: it is none of our business. Are we the policeman of ME? Is Iran to be minding its own *** business. If we chide USA for interference why do we follow in the same path.

In any event what are we going to do about it. Neither we individually nor Iran as a nation can do a *** thing. Doesn't it make sense to drop the whole thing for now. If I wanted revenge for everything someone did to me I would never have peace.


Dear FG: how is any of thing things you have catalogued….

by Bavafa on

Against the IRI, namely meddling in other’s countries internal affairs, setting up mini-proxy forces, etc. are different than what USA has done for decades now.

  Hasn’t US setup its forces next door to many nations around the world?Hasn’t US used its surrogates in ME and Arab nation in support of dictatorship?

And when was it that democracy had anything to do with their support or lack of


Case in point:

 - Iran’s only democratically elected government was overthrown by the design and help of USA

- Palestinians democratically elected government [in our recent history] was rejected and worked against by the USA

- Lebanese democratically elected government [in our recent history] was rejected and worked against by the USA


These examples can be catalogued far longer and greater than the IRI misdeeds around the world.

  Don’t get me wrong, I am all for freedom and  [secular] democracy for Iran and Iranians and do believe IRI has brought nothing but harm to Iranians, yet I hold the same as true for the Americans and their quest for power and greed.


'Hambastegi' is the main key to victory 


Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Preventing damage Iran

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on


Best way to avoid any damage to Iran is to not fight back. If there is an attack: drop guns & surrender. With all due respect to Mehrdad fighting is the worst reaction. What happens if Iranian people fight back:

  • USA will use its overwhelming power to kill them.
  • In the process it will kill a lot of innocent civilians.
  • Much infrastructure will be destroyed.
  • They will use depleted uranium ruining Iran.
  • The military and police will be shattered hence no way to keep order.
  • It may result in breakup regions; famine and misery.

What happens if soldiers just surrender:

  • Most of them will be survive.
  • Minimal damage to people and infrastructure.
  • Intact military and police to keep order and integrity of Iran 

Now I want to hear the benefits of fighting if there are any. If you cannot give good reasons then my positions stands because I back it.


You forgot who asked us there--threatend Gulf neighbors.

by FG on

The US move is anti-mullah, not anti-Iran.   It is defensive in nature and stems from repeated aggression by thre Islamic Republic in the region, covert and otherwise.

If the Iranian regime were a normal democracy instead of an aggressive theocracy most of those US forces wouldn't be there.  The theocracy creates most of its troubles, both domestically and abroad and then screams about the consequences.  How else would it neighbors, the West and the Iranian people respond to a regime which constantly targets all three?

Has not the Islamic Republic has promoted mini-Hezbollahs in all nearby states?   Is that NOt a threat to their existence?  Is it an imaginary one? Look how Iran destroyed Lebanon that way. Is it neither in the interest of neighbors or the USA or their oil resourcs to be seized by the mullah or mullah surrogaters?

 Haven't the ruling mullahs repeatedly used such surrogates (Hezbollah/ the Al Mahdi army) to attack Americans, and kidnapped Americans in the past and present?  Did it not recently plan an attack on the Saudi Ambassador to the USA which would have killed dozens of AMerican bystanders in Washington, DC.?

Do you seriously think should just ask them to stop?    Why do you think neighbors it threatens want us there.   If we threatened to leave, the only happy parties would be Iran's rulling mullahs and their puppets in Lebanon (Hezbollah) and Iraq (Al Sadr). 

Everyone elese would be in a panic for good reason.  If the Americans left, the Bad Guys would invade their neighbors and seize the Gulf in a heartbeat.  If the Islamic Republic had a normal, well-behaved democracy, do you think its neighbors would want such protection? It's undeniably aggressive yet you attribute defensive moves--made at the requests of neighbors who have experience the regime's threats--with aggression.  You put the shoes on the wrong feet.

With a peaceful, non-aggressive Iran, the main long-run fear of Arabs would be China, with its growing energy needs, should it became a naval power. You can bet most Gulf states would plead for outside protection then, including any democratic Iran.  Realism is realism.

If instead of an aggrressive theocracy or a Saddam-like absolute monarch, Iran had a reasonable democracy with no ambitions toward its neighbors, the US would have far fewer troops there.  In that case, only the possibility of a future threat from China to all Gulf nations might bring US forces back.  You  can bet local states--including a democratic Iran--would start DEMANDING  their presence if that happened for the same reason Kuwait did so after being invaded in 1991.

Ayatoilet eithrer has to be a big fan of the mullahs though he pretends otherwise or a advocate for the return of absolute monarchy with no democracy and human rights.   Like communism, both are just as bad and equally unpalatable to their subjects for long.  That's why both must constantly pump up xenophobia and conspiracy theories--especially  toward western culture an the USA because western style freedoms and democracy are a thousand times more attractive than those other options.


These are indeed disturbing news for all Iranians....

by Bavafa on

One cannot underestimate the desire and power to expand this empire, called the USA.  They have been spending far more $$$ on military might than the entire world combined, yet complain about other nations spending on their defense.  They have military bases in every corner of the world, essentially occupying others land, yet complain about the meddling and influence of other nations.


As sad as it may be, the unipolar is not working for the world as there is no balance and counter balance in the desire to conquer the world.


It seems though, this time, it is Iran and Iranians turn to be the playground of the big power and their thirst for greed.

  If a war breaks out, I wish and support a full retaliation in a defensive posture against the attacking nation.


'Hambastegi' is the main key to victory 



Poor Iranians

by ilovechelokebab on

Revolutionary Guards can't fight.....they aren't a military force. The powers that be want to destroy Iran/Fuck it up so that UK/U.S./French companies can set up shop there and make lots of money. Also their banks could finance the projects to rebuild the soon to be destroyed civilian architecture. Mullahs are toast but how much will normal Iranians suffer is the question.

Maryam Hojjat

Disturbibg News for IRAN & Iranians

by Maryam Hojjat on

But I hope the focus is mollahs and their nuclear facilities rather than IRAN & Iranians.  I thing Iran is pragenet with a lot of news.

Thanks for blog.