BLOCKADE

Hostage crisis and US coups

Tofan wrote:

"Well then my counter argument to your "1979 hostage argument" would be
that the US supported the coup of Mossadegh and declared war on the
people of Iran in 1953."

In fact, the hostage crisis was precisely an effort to PRE-EMPT another US coup to overthrow a government that Iranians wanted by a 97% majority.

US refused to return Shah to Iran, and the last time that Shah had escaped Iran, US-UK brought him back by bribing some dirt like Zahedi and Shaaban bi mokh! The monumental documents that Iran took years to paste back from millions of shreded papers of American spies in Iran, revealed the US desire to make another coup by buying new dirty politicians again.

I know, I know, people will come back with all kinds of "that was the excuse to clean up some people". They might have used those papers to clean up some of their own enemies, but there were many spies or elements that US had marked for precisely another coup a la 1953. US lost its easiest way to defeat Iranian revolution by the CLEVER embassy seige.

collective punishment

Farhad jan,

everyone is aware of all these wrongs done to the people of Iran, but most people are also horrified by the idea of Iran going through Iraq's experience.

Whatever the regime has done, there is no excuse for collective punishment for the people of Iran by hypocrites only interested in stealing oil.

In the final analysis, if Iran has an islamic republic it is because of Iranians. We will have a true and peaceful democracy when we create one ourselves. It is surely not going to be done by modern day 'pirates' addicted to oil.  

Peace!

These guys, cleverly and on

These guys, cleverly and on purpose, overlook what the IRI has done in the last 30 years on 24/7 basis by provoking the world, initiate conflict with other nations, and supporting Islamic fundamentalist groups and ideology, which has brought the world into a state of devastating conflict, but they use every excuse in the book, every word that comes out of a U.S politician mouth that remotely has anything to do with the regime (First they were bashing Bush saying its all because of him, then they supported Obama and as soon as he said that IRI is the biggest threat, they turned against him, and now their bashing the Congress, and in none of them they said anything disrespectful to the Iranian people,  so obviously, their problem is not with Bush), any action that the U.N, U.S and other countries do to defend themselves, anything that the majority of Iranians say against the fascist regime in Tehran, to make the regime look like a victim. If a war were to break out between U.S and Iran, the Iranian people know quiet well who to blame: the fascist, war mongering, Islamic fundamentalism supporting, people oppressing, human rights violating, world provoking, clash of civilizations initializing, Iran destroying, un-Iranian regime of the Islamic so called “Republic”.

compromise

Lets hope the mullahs accept the latest offer by Iran-6. They would gain a lot from what is on offer right now.

RE: BK

Well then my counter argument to your "1979 hostage argument" would be that the US supported the coup of Mossadegh and declared war on the people of Iran in 1953.

On your other point, I disagree, if its something the IRI (which I believe belong in a bucket of waste) has been good at, is mass producing rockets, torpedoes, missiles reverse enginered from Chinese and Russian models. Iran was one of the top exporters of weapons in the middle east right before the nuke sanctions, competing with Israel even. Sanctions came, and Israeli war based economy boomed.

Also, In a war game with Australia, the US lost several ships to one australian silent diesel submarines. Something Iran is producing itself now. The US is behind the Russians when it comes to missile technology, Sunburn missiles etc. Look it up. Iran has been the main buyer of russian missile tech since the beginning of the 90's. There wont even be a "limited strike" because there will be a justified retaliation from the Iranian side, and the retaliation will hurt in so many ways, there have been written countless books and papers about the subject from retired american commanders.

The only thing I will forfeit and say the US has clear 100% dominance when it comes to Iran, is its Airforce with its beautifull new lethal toy the F-35 and its stealth bombers. Give Iran 15-20 more years and the kids over at Ashtahar and Sharif Unis will have caught up with the west in that front as well as China did in the 90's. Hopefully, Iran can aquire the S-300 from the Russians until that time, in which case, the only option on the table for the 3 stooges would be talks. I recommend you read on the drills and weapon systems I mentioned above, you will see that attacking is not an option.

The term "all options are on the table", even as insulting it is to threaten a country with nuclear missiles, is just a catchphrase. Its Cold War language, nothing more.

Rep. Waxman: "No War on Iran"

"IPS: Is there unanimity in Congress on talking to Iran?

"HW: No, no. Speaking of a Democratic administration, Obama has been criticized that he is naive to want to talk without preconditions, and the Republican position is "they are our enemy" and they want to be much more tough on Iran and not talk to them. I don't want to say that all Republicans take this position, but for the most part, Republican leaders have not talked about why we don't pick up and go back to the 2003 offer and why we don't have more direct contacts and discussions - I haven't heard that from too many Republicans.

IPS: What is the message that you're getting from the Iranian-American community in your constituency?

HW: I get very mixed messages from my constituents became some say don't even talk to these guys, we don't want to work out anything with them - we want a regime change. And then more often than that, I get "don't go to war, don't use military against Iran, that would be the worst thing to do". [On the other hand], my Jewish constituents do not like the fact that he [Obama] wants to talk [to Iran].

IPS: Do you think Bush administration will launch an attack, or an air strike, against Iran before the general elections?

HW: No, no. Send the message to the Iranians [laughing].

Omid Memarian is World Peace Fellow at UC Berkeley's Graduate School of Journalism and a regular contributor to Inter Press Service.

//www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JF19Ak03....

The Israeli Lobby's Push for a U. S.-Iran War Must be Stopped

One need not be an apologist for the IRI regime in Tehran to recognize the pivotal role of the Israeli Lobby and its organs of influence, like the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), in pushing for the utilization of the American military as a surrogate Janissary force for Zionist machinations in the Middle East and Central Asia.

Such activity portends apocalyptic tragedy for the United States, Iran, and the entire world. It must be stopped. And the Israeli agents presently operative in and through the American Congress, Executive Branch, and corporate news media, must be ferreted out of these institutions for a true restoration of an American Republic accountable to the Constitution of the United States and the people governed by it.

Let us say no to preemptive nuclear war and mass murder. Let us say no to the ongoing development of an un-Constitutional police state within the borders of the continental United States. Let the people of America say no to a foreign policy run by Zionist agents, transnational corporations, and oil consortiums; and may George Washington's Farewell Address advice on relationships with other nations be recovered by his descendants--"friendship with all; entangling alliances with none."

Declaration of war? I don't think so..

Some posters, including the writer of the piece are going somewhat OTT in reacting to this proposed bill. A number of voices in the US that have been calling for a military attack for some time now. But the US public does not want to see another full-scale war, nor do the military chiefs.

Also ToofanZeGreat writes: "..Economically, the US has declared war on Iran since 79. So that is not something new…."

I beg to differ. If you want to go that far back, it was the Islamic Republic that effectively declared war on the US by invading its embassy in Tehran and taking its staff hostage for a year and half. It was in response to that event that the US started freezing Iran’s assets in the US.

And while I agree that the US is currently too stretched militarily to initiate another full-scale war, if it seriously put its mind to it, it wouldn’t have much difficulty in overcoming the Iranian naval forces. If you seriously believe a Iran’s torpedo boat are going to cause US huge casualties, then you’re buying to IRI’s “gondeh goozi”. The main military difficulty the US will face is likely to be Iran’s larger and more difficult terrain (that Iraq’s), that will seriously test the US ground forces. That is where their casualties could mount up.

But this discussion is all academic, because, as I stated before, there will NOT be a full-scale invasion of Iran. If the US (or Israel) carry out any kind of attack, it will be limited to air strikes on nuclear installations.

Regardless, hopefully there will be NO attack of any kind on Iran. The Iranian people are already suffering enough under their own regime without morons like Bush and Cheney starting another disastrous conflict in the region and adding to their misery.

"No we are not all Israelis"

Buchanon 2006:

"No, Kenny boy, we are not "all Israelis." Some of us still think of ourselves as Americans, first, last, and always . And, no, Mr. Kristol, this is not "our war." It's your war."

Thanks GOD there are still some true Americans around!

//www.townhall.com/columnists/PatrickJBuchana...

ToofanZeGreat .....

On the money!

A drastic improvement since last time I read your posts on interpreting "mamood" comments.

best wishes..

Un American Activity by AIPAC

This bill will destroy US economy by pushing the price of oil even higher. It will create instability in Saudi Arabia as they will make them internally seem bending toward backward toward Israel. Which would raise the price of oil even higher. It will put tremendous pressure on trucking industry, airlines and consumers and could possibly put US economy into a depression.

This is what happens when the most powerful lobby in US is lobbying for a foreign country. Most AIPAC members probably have put most of their money in hedge funds that profit from rise of oil prices and they all have dual citizenship in Israel. So when the $hit hits the fan. They'll take their money move back to Israel or move to France and leave America in ruins.

Pentagon squirms

each time over paid politicans with no military knowledge start to push the US military against Iran. Pentagon military drills showed that US naval casualties would be immense in such a conflict, Iran has one of the largest torpedo boat gatherings in that water and hundreds if not thousands of anti ship missiles pointing against them. The silent diesel submarines, few in numbers, could cause huge propaganda victories if it were to sink any ship. Iran could flood the resistance groups in Iraq and Afghanistan with its anti helicopter/fighter/tank missiles that basically halted the Israeli incursion into lebanon in 2006. The generals in the Pentagon know this.

No this is not going to happen, they cant do it, the only sign that a war is coming is when the US moves its fleet out of the persian gulf, especially its carriers, out of range of any Iranian missile, plane or ship./boat, and the US bases and bunkers in Iraq are at a completed phase. And even then, economically, they would be screwed. Israel has no fighters that can reach Iran, and if they were to do so, they need US acceptance for the use of airspace. Dragging te US into the conflict. War is not coming, that is BS.

Economically, the US has decleared war on Iran since 79. So that is not something new. But each time the US pushes Iran financially, the more of a deep hole it digs for itself with higher oil prices. Not to mention that more and more financially powerfull people in europe are getting frustrated watching their deals go up in smoke because of Israel and the US. So AIPAC are digging their own grave for the future. The more of this crap they pull off, more people in the US and Europe are going to wake up and ask why they have to have economic hardship because of a small pissy neo colonial fanatic apartheid state.

The only unanswered question

This being a Non-binding resolution is more for show than substance nevertheless bespeaks of the general mood and intention on the Hill. Only simpletons would think hawking a flawed doctorate thesis as the real strategic evaluation of the shifting regional realities would automatically become the framework for long term U.S. regional policy. The same applies to those who think by recruiting and arranging the travels of “peace groups” to the Islamic Republic and the usual guided tours of the Islamist Potemkin villages resulting in glowing talks from the returnees can hide the brutal realities of the Islamist Republic. This Islamist regime is no good, does not have the potential or mechanism to be reformed and has to be removed; the only unanswered question is whether it is done by empowering Iranians doing it for Iranians or by others for the benefit of others.

Lunacy

Madness.
Iranophobia.

Hell to israel and AIPAC!

they are the real enemy of iran and the real threat to world peace. No wonder everyone outside the US hates them. After all they are the real culprit for Iraq's wars! US congress belongs to them, which means America is at their merci! They just use America! They are no friend of US, just freeloaders!

House sanctions

House sanctions resolutions—H. Con. Res. 362, introduced on May 22, 2007 by Reps Gary Ackerman (D-NY) and Mike Pence (R-IN)–lies is useless because it doesn't indicate How would this embargo be implemented, and by whom?

This becomes another toothless sanction where there is no agreement between the U.S. and Europe purely designed for domestic consumption of donors/constituents come re-election time.

Zionists are the sole winners....

This is playing with fire. It is going to burn everyone while Zionists smile in content!

Thank you Emily and NIAC for informing
us. I doubt Bush goes along with it or even Europeans. It would put oil at $250 a barrel even at a hint of such aggressive measure. World would go up in flame and the racist, self centered Zionists are only beneficiaries.

Sanctions are nothing short of war

Thanks Emily, completely agree with you. Here is my take on sanctions in general:
//www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=nod...

Not really

The resolution only talks about an internationally supported blockade, not a unilateral one as far I could see from its text. 

Peace!

Bleak

This is indeed a declaration of war. However it's one that will more than likely result in executive branch intervention. It is not in the national security interests of the United States to engage in a naval blockade of Iran. Not when it has over 100 billion dollars in foreign reserves that have been all converted to euros and yen. Iran could easily stop selling oil which will take about 2 million barrels a day off the market. Theoretically Iran could continue an oil embargo against all that support this resolution for a year or more. There are more tools Iran could utilize. Iran could even sell oil at a discount to those willing to challenge the blockade. Another factor to consider is that all this is taking on a very large assumption that other OPEC members and also the Gulf countries will go along. I think it will be unlikely. That along with the tension this resolution would cause, can potentially push oil in the $180 a barrel area. Is America really ready for $7/gallon gas? I think not.

yes, that is a declaration

yes, that is a declaration of war.