VIEW
به زبان فارسی
PICTORY
LATEST MUSIC
SEARCH
Dying for War
14-Aug-2010
Obama administration officials, as well as U.S. lawmakers and European diplomats passionately made the argument this spring that tough sanctions on Iran were necessary to avoid war. But contrary to their predictions, the drumbeat for war -- particularly from Israel – has only increased since the UN Security Council adopted a new resolution against Tehran in June.
The latest in this crescendo of voices is Jeffrey Goldberg’s article in The Atlantic, "Point of No Return. " As the title suggests, it essentially makes the case (though in an uncharacteristically subtle manner by neoconservative standards) that there are no choices left -- war is a fait accompli, and the only question is whether it will be initiated by Israel or by the United States.
"If the Israelis reach the firm conclusion that Obama will not, under any circumstances, launch a strike on Iran, then the countdown will begin for a unilateral Israeli attack," Goldberg writes.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in Goldberg’s description, is a man whose back is against the wall. He cannot accommodate the Obama administration on the Palestinian issue because that would upset his 100-year old father, and he cannot afford to have faith in Obama’s strategy to prevent a nuclear Iran through peaceful means because the threat from Iran is "existential."
Goldberg interviewed roughly 40 former and current Israeli officials for his piece. Although his access to Israeli officials certainly doesn't seem to be lacking, the same cannot be said about his treatment of the assumptions behind the Israeli talking points.
The most critical assumption that Israeli officials have presented publicly for the past 18 years -- long before the firebrand Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stepped on the scene -- is that the Iranian government is irrational and that Iran constitutes an existential threat to Israel.
These departing points in the Israeli analysis eliminate all options on Iran with the exception of preventive military action. An adversary who isn’t rational cannot be deterred nor contained, because such an actor -- by definition -- does not make decisions based on a cost-benefit analysis. In addition, if the foe is presented as an existential threat, then preventive action is the sole rational response. These Israeli assumptions short-cut the entire policy process and skip all the steps that normally are taken before a state determines that force is necessary.
Judging by Israel’s rhetoric, it is easy to conclude that these beliefs are genuinely held as undisputable truths by the Israeli security apparatus.
But if judged by its actions rather than its rhetoric, a very different image emerges -- one that shows an astute Israeli appreciation for the complexity of Iran’s security calculations and decision-making processes, and a recognition that conventional arguments are insufficient to convince Washington to view Iran from an Israeli lens.
Goldberg mentions in his article that the Jewish people and the Iranians have a long and common history. It is a history that has been overwhelmingly positive until recently. Iran is still home to the largest population of Jews in the Middle East outside of Israel itself, and the Jewish community’s impact on Iranian culture, politics and society runs deep.
In modern times, a strong security relationship developed between these two non-Arab states due to their sense of common threats -- primarily strong Arab nationalist states such as Egypt under Gamal Abdel Nasser and Iraq under Saddam Hussein, as well as the Soviet Union (which, besides its own designs on the region, was the military backer of these Arab powers).
From the Israeli perspective, this relationship was strategic. The periphery doctrine put in place by David Ben Gurion dictated that Israel’s security was best achieved by creating alliances with the non-Arab states in the region’s periphery to balance the Arab states in Israel’s vicinity. Iran was the most important periphery power, due to its strength and its coveted energy resources.
For the Shah of Iran, however, the relationship was at best a marriage of convenience. An alliance with Israel was needed to balance the Arabs, but only until Iran was strong enough to befriend the Arabs from a position of strength. "If Iran becomes strong enough to be able to deal with the situation [in the region] all by itself, and its relationship with the United States becomes so solidified so that you won’t need [Israel], then strategically the direction was to gravitate to the Arabs," Gholam-Reza Afkhami, a former advisor to the Shah, told me in 2004.
In spite of the different value that Iran and Israel ascribed to their relationship, geopolitical factors ensured that it was kept in tact -- even after the Islamic fundamentalists took power in Iran through the 1979 revolution.
Goldberg’s lengthy essay fails to recognize that throughout the 1980s, in spite of the Iranian government’s venomous rhetoric against Israel and its anti-Israeli ideology, the Jewish state sought to retain relations with Iran and actively aided Iran in the Iraq-Iran war. Only three days after Iraqi troops entered Iranian territory, Israeli Foreign Minister Moshe Dayan interrupted a private visit to Vienna to hold a press conference to urge the United States -- in the middle of the hostage crisis -- to forget the past and help Iran keep up its defenses.
From Israel’s perspective, an Iraqi victory would have been disastrous due to the boost it would give the Arab bloc against Israel. By aiding Iran, Israel hoped to prove to the new rulers in Iran the strategic utility of continuing the Iranian-Israeli security collaboration.
Key to this was convincing Washington to engage with Iran. This desire eventually climaxed in the Iran-Contra scandal -- an Israeli initiative led by Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin aimed at bringing the U.S. and Israel into a "broader strategic relationship with Iran." American neoconservatives at the time aided the Israeli effort to lobby the U.S. to talk to Iran, to sell arms to Iran, and to ignore Iran’s venomous rhetoric against the Jewish state.
In 1982, Ariel Sharon (then Israel’s defense minister) proudly announced on NBC that Israel would continue to sell arms to Iran -- in spite of an American ban on such sales. This occurred while Iran routinely introduced resolutions to expel Israel from the United Nations -- to which the Israelis responded by selling more arms to the Khomeini regime.
With the end of the Cold War came the end of Israeli overtures to Iran. The defeat of Iraq in 1991 and the collapse of the Soviet Union eliminated the two common threats that had formed the basis for any Israeli-Iranian collaboration. Though this improved the security environments of both Iran and Israel, it also left both states unchecked. Without Iraq balancing Iran, Tehran could now become a threat, Israeli strategists began to argue. Combined with efforts to define a new order for the region, Iran and Israel were thrown into a strategic rivalry that has continued and intensified till today.
It was at this time, in late 1992, that Israeli Labor Party officials began to publicly depict Iran as an existential threat. Rhetoric reflected intentions and, having been freed from the chains of Iraq, Iran was acquiring the capacity to turn intentions into policy, they argued. The charge was led, incidentally, by Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin, who only five years earlier had advised Washington to disregard the rhetoric of the mullahs and view Iran as an opportunity rather than a threat. "Death is at our doorstep," Rabin concluded in 1993 of the Iranian threat, though only five years earlier he had maintained that Iran was a strategic ally.
But it wasn’t new Iranian capabilities or a sudden discovery of Iran’s anti-Israeli rhetoric that prompted the depiction of Iran as an existential threat. Rather, it was the fear that in the new post-Cold War environment in which Israel had lost much of its strategic significance to Washington, improved relations between the US and Iran could come at the expense of Israeli security interests. Iran would become emboldened and the U.S. would no longer seek to contain its growth. The balance of power would shift from Israel towards Iran and the Jewish state would no longer be able rely on Washington to control Tehran. "The Great Satan will make up with Iran and forget about Israel," Gerald Steinberg of Bar Ilan University in Israel told me during a visit to Jerusalem.
While this Israeli fear of abandonment was poorly understood in Washington at the time and believed to be exaggerated, the rationale for Israel’s concerns has grown significantly over the years due to disagreements with the U.S. on what the ultimate American red line on Iran’s nuclear program should be.
During the Bush administration, no daylight could be detected between Washington and Tel Aviv’s positions -- enrichment in Iran was not acceptable, period. The Obama administration has been much more ambiguous on this point, however, fueling fears in Israel that America would ultimately -- within a larger settlement with Tehran -- accept enrichment on Iranian soil under strict international inspections.
This has, understandably, fueled more Israeli wariness of Obama’s engagement policy with Iran, leaving the Jewish state fearing the success of diplomacy more than its failure, since success by American standards would not qualify as success by Israeli standards.
Two days after President Obama’s election victory in November 2008, then-Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni expressed her categorical opposition to U.S. engagement with Iran. "We live in a neighborhood in which sometimes dialogue -- in a situation where you have brought sanctions, and you then shift to dialogue -- is liable to be interpreted as weakness," Livni told Israel Radio. Asked if she supported any U.S. dialogue with Iran, Livni replied in no uncertain terms: "The answer is no."
A year later, on the eve of sensitive negotiations with the Iranians in Geneva on a fuel swap aimed at removing 1,200 kilograms of low enriched uranium from Iran, Defense Minister Ehud Barak expressed his fears that anything less than a total halt to uranium enrichment would still leave the possibility of Iran making bomb material. "Not only should enriched material be removed, but enrichment must be stopped in Iran," Barak said. He added that diplomacy must be given only a "short and defined" time before "serious and immediate" sanctions are imposed on Iran.
The Obama administration was angered by Barak’s statement, according to Israeli papers, but it also revealed the real fear of the Israelis -- that successful diplomacy would lead to an agreement between the U.S. and Iran that would limit but not end Iran’s nuclear program while leaving Israel alone in facing the Iranian challenge. Iran’s strengthened position in the region would be recognized by Washington, legitimizing the shift in the balance of power in Iran’s favor and ending American efforts to reverse that shift.
Even an Iran that doesn't have nuclear weapons but that can build them would damage Israel's ability to deter militant Palestinian and Lebanese organizations. It would damage the image of Israel as the sole nuclear-armed state in the region and undercut the myth of its invincibility. Gone would be the days when Israel's military supremacy would enable it to dictate the parameters of peace and pursue unilateral peace plans.
This could force Israel to accept territorial compromises with its neighbors in order to deprive Iran of points of hostility that it could use against the Jewish state. Israel simply would not be able to afford a nuclear rivalry with Iran and continued territorial disputes with the Arabs at the same time.
However problematic this scenario would be for Israel, it does not constitute an existential threat. Presenting it as such may have the benefit of pressuring the U.S. not to engage with Iran in the first place, or at a minimum create hurdles to ensure that diplomacy doesn’t lead to any U.S.-Iran agreement. But that is not the same as declaring that the Israelis truly believe Iran to be an existential threat, as Goldberg argues.
In fact, several senior Israeli officials have rejected that claim and pointed out the risks it puts Israel under. For instance, Barak told the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth in September 2009 that "I am not among those who believe Iran is an existential issue for Israel." A few years earlier, Haaretz revealed that in internal discussions, then-Foreign Minister Livni argued against the idea that a nuclear Iran would constitute an existential threat to Israel. This past summer in Israel, former Mossad chief Ephraim Halevi told me the same thing and pointed out that speaking of Iran as an existential threat exaggerates Iran’s power and leaves the false -- and dangerous -- impression that Israel is helpless and vulnerable.
This echoed what Halevi told the Washington Post’s David Ignatius in 2007. "[Iran] is not an existential threat. It is not within the power of Iran to destroy the state of Israel -- at best it can cause Israel grievous damage. Israel is indestructible," he said.
Rather than a factual, critical presentation of where Israel currently stands on Iran and why, Goldberg’s article is perhaps better understood as the starting salvo in a long-term campaign to create the necessary conditions for a future war with Iran.
Whether characterizing it as "mainstreaming war with Iran" or "making aggression respectable," Goldberg’s article serves to create a false narrative that claims that the two failed meetings held between the U.S. and Iran last October constitute an exhaustion of diplomacy, that deems the Obama administration’s crippling, indiscriminate sanctions on Iran a failure only weeks after they've been imposed, and that then leaves only one option remaining on the table: an American or Israeli military strike. And on top of that, if President Obama doesn’t green light a bombing campaign, Israel will have no choice but to bomb itself, even though it isn’t well-equipped to do so, according to Goldberg.
It is important to note that the aim of this unfolding campaign may not be to pressure Obama into military action. It could just as much serve to portray Obama as weak and indecisive on national security issues that are of grave concern to the U.S. and that are of existential nature to Israel. This portrayal will give the Republicans valuable ammunition for the November congressional elections as well as for the 2012 presidential race.
Indeed, the likely political motivation for this unfolding campaign should not be underestimated. Just as much that the building blocks of the Iraq war were put into place under the Clinton years -- most importantly with the passage of the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 -- serious preparation for selling an Iran war to the American public under a Republican president (Palin?) in 2013 must be undertaken now, both to establish the narrative for that sell and to use the narrative to remove any obstacles in the White House along the way.
What is lost in this shadow discussion that only pays lip service to the repercussions of war is the impact any military campaign -- or the mere constant speculation of military strikes -- will have for the Iranian people’s struggle for democracy and human rights.
Iranian activists have warned that even raising the specter of war undercuts the opposition in Iran. In the words of the prominent Iranian dissident Akbar Ganji , "Since Iranians, in particular opposition groups, do not want to see a repeat of Afghanistan or Iraq in Iran, they've actually had to scale back their opposition to the government [during the Bush administration] in order not to encourage an invasion [by the U.S.]"
The Obama administration's less bellicose approach to Iran provided space to the pro-democracy movement that Iranian activists were quick to seize upon in 2009. "The mere fact that Obama didn't make military threats made the Green Movement possible," Ganji said. "A military attack would destroy all of that."
If Goldberg’s article is the starting salvo of a campaign that does not take into consideration the existential threat this constitutes to the Iranian pro-democracy movement, and that aims to push out Obama and push in a Republican president amenable to a U.S. war against Iran for the sake of avoiding an Israeli war against Iran, then the risk of war in the short term may not be as great as Goldberg claims.
But the long-term risk of a war that is boldly framed as a test of an American president’s commitment to Israel should not be easily dismissed.
First published in salon.com.
AUTHOR
Dr. Trita Parsi is president of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) and author of "Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Iran, Israel and the United States".
| Recently by Trita Parsi | Comments | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Bibi’s Three Steps Forward, One Back | 5 | Oct 13, 2012 |
| Mistaken Path | 18 | Jun 22, 2012 |
| Give Obama Elbow Room on Iran | 26 | Jun 15, 2012 |
RECENT COMMENTS
IRANIANS OF THE DAY
| Person | About | Day |
|---|---|---|
| نسرین ستوده: زندانی روز | Dec 04 | |
| Saeed Malekpour: Prisoner of the day | Lawyer says death sentence suspended | Dec 03 |
| Majid Tavakoli: Prisoner of the day | Iterview with mother | Dec 02 |
| احسان نراقی: جامعه شناس و نویسنده ۱۳۰۵-۱۳۹۱ | Dec 02 | |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Prisoner of the day | 46 days on hunger strike | Dec 01 |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Graffiti | In Barcelona | Nov 30 |
| گوهر عشقی: مادر ستار بهشتی | Nov 30 | |
| Abdollah Momeni: Prisoner of the day | Activist denied leave and family visits for 1.5 years | Nov 30 |
| محمد کلالی: یکی از حمله کنندگان به سفارت ایران در برلین | Nov 29 | |
| Habibollah Golparipour: Prisoner of the day | Kurdish Activist on Death Row | Nov 28 |
Trita and CASMII war scare tactics
by arash Irandoost on Thu Aug 19, 2010 12:56 PM PDTآنقدر بر طبل جنگ کوبید و هشت زمان بوش گفتید جنگ .... دیگر کسی باورتان ندارد حتی اگر راست بگویید
جالب است که بیشتر شایعه جنگ از روسیه بود همیشه سایت نووستی روسیه این خبرها را درج کرده و می کند
//iranian.com/main/2010/aug/dying-war
defend?
by sparrowlake on Tue Aug 17, 2010 05:40 PM PDT"I have and will do my duty to defend Iran"- then start doing it and do what is necessary to rid yourself of tyranny. Becasue at this point by doing nothing you are defending tyranny.
Max Blumenthal's take on Goldberg's article
by Onlyiran on Mon Aug 16, 2010 08:21 PM PDTHe compares Goldberg to the nut job John Hagee:
//maxblumenthal.com/2010/08/the-point-of-no-credibility-jeffrey-goldberg-echoes-pastor-hagee/
Make sure to click on th link where it says "lusted for an attack on Iran". It's a great video. I posted it in a blog some time ago.
Blumenthal is DA MAN!!! I love that guy. Make sure to read his site:
//maxblumenthal.com/
???
by Doctor X on Mon Aug 16, 2010 04:03 PM PDTIt was not a new thing that made the whole country go through war prep exercises?:) It just won't occur to anyone that there is anything to that right?:)
I don't know man. we can do this all day and all night but One things is for sure ke Dood az Kondeh Boland mishaavaad.
Doctor jan,
by Midwesty on Mon Aug 16, 2010 03:38 PM PDTChronologically, this types of rhetoric are common between Israeli officials and IRI.
Unfortunately Iranians were not as artistic and colorful in propaganda as Israelis. Iranians got stock on one repetitive statement, "down with Israel". Even the recent comment that AN made that made the whole Israeli society go berserk, wasn't a new thing.
He just quoted an old statement of Khomeini after about 5 years of being abused by Israel's ranting on how they were going to skewer Iran, sometimes top down sometime up-side-down, sometimes on the side with Bar-B-Q sauce and sometime just plain good ol' fashion dry.
Midwesty jan
by Doctor X on Mon Aug 16, 2010 01:56 PM PDTSuppose Zaboonam Laal , zaboonam Laal, someone says that You and your friends bayad az safheye roozegar mahv shavid,
would you go around try to justify him? That No, he did not mean to say it that way, It just came out that way. Also suppose, He repeated it over and over several times. so there was no room for suspicion left for anyone, By now everyone knew exactly what he was talking about and what the intentions were. Remember he did not have to use exact words, But he dropped hints after hints as to what he is really after. What would you do and what steps would you take and how would you proceed in protecting yourself and friends??
Vanish, Mahva, Disappear, All and all point to one thing. Destruction, Annialation.
Nabavaraneh mokh-lessim:))
Dr. x jan,
by Midwesty on Mon Aug 16, 2010 10:53 AM PDTI am disappointed at the Iranian Israelis who very well know our culture and the Iranian expressions. So it's basically a hoopla....
Didn't I have a point there?
Az safheye roozegar mah shavad means:
by Midwesty on Mon Aug 16, 2010 10:42 AM PDT"Vanish from the pages of time"
Dr. x jan,
by Midwesty on Mon Aug 16, 2010 10:39 AM PDTThis was the hint from Escape:
"Iranian exiles are going about it the wrong way and have been for some time.Obviously it's not working and we are nearer and nearer to war each day..No Iranian has tried to reconcile with Isreal".
Then I said with reference to that bold part:
"Ahh I was suspecting that for long time but again that's the wrong way
getting iran's attention. Don't you think Israel is playing with fire?
Putting the life of millions if not billions at steak including the
Israeli citizens?"
Then she came back with:
"What are you talking about?Their lives already have been at stake,that's
what happens when you are threatened to be wiped off the earth isn't
it?"
The missing point is:
Israel is fully aware of the hallow rhetoric of IRI. If we accept that those rhetoric are presumably sign of Iran's aggression, still there is no justification for a preemptive action. That's why I said:
"...making a threat is punishable but not at the same level of carrying it.
Also the wipe off the map comment has been mistranslated gravely".
So that was my point that: Israel is making a hoopla over nothing with respect to the rhetoric!
Bavafa
by Reality-Bites on Tue Aug 17, 2010 01:51 AM PDTI think I understand what you are trying to say. But there are serious issues at hand here that are effectively being ignored by the so called intelligencia (cough: Trita Paris and the like) in their pontifications about the belligerence of Israel towards Iran.
The debate on what precisely Ahmadinejad said or didn't say about the "wiping out" comment is now just semantics. The man's deep felt hatred of Israel was/is clear. Added to which he made this comment, which was even more clear, i.e. that Israel’s regime is a “stinking corpse” and “on its way to annihilation”. (see here //afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5ix-viVGAnfS1RH... ).
More importantly than that is the fact that the cat's out of the bag now, so to speak. His comments have been broadcast around the world and to most people who have heard them, they pretty darn well sound like the IRI wants to and is actively seeking to bring about the end of Israel and its people. What else does "marg bar Israel" (death to Israel) mean for crying out loud?
And all this from a fundamentalist Islamic country that (rightly or wrongly) is thought by many to be developing nuclear weapons and has been in a long standing dispute over the issue with the UN.
To top it all of, the fact that the IRI has been funding and arming Hamas and the Lebanese Hezbollah (sworn enemies of Israel remember) doesn't exactly do much to lessen that impression that it wants to do away with Israel, does it?
So, why are we surprised Israelis and their supporters talk of attacking Iran?
If, as it is being said by some, Ahmadinejad was misquoted and if this odious man the regime he is the president of, really cared for the welfare of the people of Iran, then all he needed to do (and still can do) is to hold an international press conference and declare openly and clearly that as much as he dislikes Israel, he and his regime are not seeking the annihilation of that country and Iran would never launch any attack on them and would use its military only in self-defence, ie if it has been attacked first.
So, if Ahmadinejad and the rest his IRI gang truly wish to save Iran from an attack or at least remove the immediate prospect of such a threat, by a country that in your words is "just as bad of a track record if not much worse towards their neighbours", then that is all he needs to do.
So why doesn't he?
And while we are at it, why don't people like Trita Parsi and his friends (so obviously concerned about Iran being attacked) ask him this?
You can feel it.
by revor on Mon Aug 16, 2010 10:03 AM PDTWar with Iran is not getting closer it's going to happen. Read between the lines listen carefully to the rhetoric.
Just like Clinton set up Bush for his war in Iraq, Bush set Obama up for war with Iran. I'm guessing within two years. The only thing that will stop it is regime change. It's not the people of Iran it's the government. Realistically the USA could care less if the Regime in Iran tortures it's people and threaten's Israel. The USA doesn't want the oil and gas of Iran developed until the US has a friendly government in place that will save it's oil for the future. The Saudi's don't want the oil and gas of Iran developed either, they hate competition.
The Israeli's, they're the excuse, they're not using the USA, they are being used by the USA as the reason to attack, well that and the nuke that Iran is developing (really?)
For whatever reason the regime in Iran want's a war as well. A wise man in Iran need only to look to the west to see that the USA needs only a small excuse to attack a country and not a real reason.
In the end there will be a disasterous war, there will be a government put in place. If the Iranians want this new government to be their own I think it would be best if they hurried up and oust the regime that so many seem to hate so much. That might stop a war.
Hmmmmm
Escape:
by Bavafa on Mon Aug 16, 2010 08:44 AM PDTI thought you were going to answer some thing but there was only a question and that is if I could really understand it?
But I will pick up on Midwesty point, for those of us who speak Farsi know exactly what he said "wiping Israel off the map" and what it meant? Those translators are way over paid for a job that they don't know how to do truthfully.
Furthermore, the guy does not command even a police station, so how could he do any damn thing, with his Lebass Shakhsi (plain cloth people) just in case you don't speak Farsi?
But don't take my response as a defense for IRI and AN, they are indefensible specially towards their own citizens. But my point for us Iranians is that we are faced with a regime that we believe is illegitimate and brutal towards dissident citizens. At the same time we are faced with another country that has just as bad of a track record if not much worse towards their neighbors and we are faced with their threats, partially due to the laud mouthing that we have been doing and partially due to standing with the oppressed neighbors. Now should we cheer for our bad IRI to be bombed knowing well that many many Iranians will also pay the price or should we do all that we can to prevent this massacre and meanwhile try to get ride of IRI?
Mehrdad
Midwesty
by Doctor X on Mon Aug 16, 2010 08:31 AM PDTLOL:)!
Prove your point as to what?? what was your point? You have got a hodgepodge of points in there . one being more controversial than the other, and all of a sudden you have proved something??:)) baba ey val.
The proverbial fire is being played with by both sides. The propaganda is being run bothways. be mindful of that. What mistransation? Similar lines have been said in order to convey one thing. Is all of that somehow mistranslated too?:)
Mola joon
by AMIR1973 on Mon Aug 16, 2010 06:49 AM PDTwhat you have found and claim to be mola should be registered and patent after your name in the BS museum. What can one expect from a Zionist groupie such as yourself but slander and lie just like your bosses in Tel Aviv.
Chashm, besiar khob. Learn to take a joke, O West-residing IRI Groupie. Good luck with your Jihad against Sheytan-e Bozorg and may you always make the Americans "fly like rats". Cheers :-)
Well there are couple of things
by Midwesty on Mon Aug 16, 2010 06:46 AM PDTmaking a threat is punishable but not at the same level of carrying it. Also the wipe off the map comment has been mistranslated gravely. But I am not here to talk about that. so again that proves my point that Israel is playing with the fire which proves the point of this article that its propaganda machine must be stopped.
Midwesty
by Escape on Mon Aug 16, 2010 06:34 AM PDTWhat are you talking about?Their lives already have been at stake,that's what happens when you are threatened to be wiped off the earth isn't it?
Amirak, I think you should patent your great discovery
by Mola Nasredeen on Mon Aug 16, 2010 06:34 AM PDTwhat you have found and claim to be mola should be registered and patent after your name in the BS museum. What can one expect from a Zionist groupie such as yourself but slander and lie just like your bosses in Tel Aviv.
Escape,
by Midwesty on Mon Aug 16, 2010 06:19 AM PDTAhh I was suspecting that for long time but again that's the wrong way getting iran's attention. Don't you think Israel is playing with fire? Putting the life of millions if not billions at steak including the Israeli citizens?
Will the real Mola please stand up? :-)
by AMIR1973 on Mon Aug 16, 2010 06:01 AM PDTThey will rally and support the war efforts against any invader.
They will make the Americans "fly like rats" and "slaughter them all". Through careful analysis of his statements on this and other blogs, I have managed to discover the true identity of Mola:
//www.marz-kreations.com/Humor/We_Love_the_Iraqi_Information_Minister_files/07-minister.jpg
//www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/mohammed_saeed_alsahaf.html
He is currently living on welfare in the Great Satan (aka San Fernando Valley, California). Cheers .-)
“WAR/COMMENTS DRUMBEATS”
by Demo on Mon Aug 16, 2010 05:46 AM PDTRead Mr. Evita’s own lips: “Drumbeats of War.” As a illegitimate product of ongoing “Treacherous Alliance of US/Israel/Iran”, i.e. the title of his own book, he knows quite well about the hollow (drum type) distraction he is witch crafting. Have not we had enough of the same for the past 31 years: Hostage Crisis, Iran/Iraq War Crisis, Lebanon Crisis, Velayat’e Faghih Crisis, Ahmadinejad Crisis, Green Movement Crisis, Nuclear Crisis, Israel/Iran War Crisis, and still going & going. Have not they all been about keeping Moolahs in power & building the same type of regime in Iraq & Afghanistan while we are busy commenting thousands of miles away from the scene????
Mehrdad
by Escape on Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:33 AM PDTThis is a good discussion and relative to our previous discussion on a different thread.Let me answer your questions this time instead of the other way around.
But the f*&king man is at the top right now and the question is what are we going to do about that and what are going to do about the looming attack on Iran?
Damage control.That's exactly what Ahmadinejhad and the IRI does not want.
Do we want to allow the attack because of the lunatic on top?
Iranian exiles are going about it the wrong way and have been for some time.Obviously it's not working and we are nearer and nearer to war each day..No Iranian has tried to reconcile with Isreal..No,if they did they would be called a Zionist. And so,how will you prevent war without breaking the division?
You have camel blinders on
by Fair on Sun Aug 15, 2010 11:50 PM PDTobviously.
It is happenning in my head only? Is that why you have a regime that has more reporters in prison than any other country in the world? Or one which has one of the most elaborate security appartus anywhere? Or they want to open a ministry to counter the "soft war"?
I guess these are all the signs of a regime that feels secure from being overthrown. To a camel at least:)
And finally, I am not the one who calls them bivatan, their LEADER, none other than Ayatollah Khomeini said so himself:
"We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another
name for paganism. I say let this land burn. I say let this land go up
in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world."
-Ayatollah Khomeini
Like I said- The biggest anti Iran cheerelader and bivatan of all time.
And it will not be "them" who stands up to any attack, they will be in their posh Tehran homes just like last time. It will be the poor people of Iran who will suffer.
Khomeini the bivatan fascist was in his palace in Tehran surrounded by anti aircraft guns while the rest of Tehran was trying to leave the capital in traffic jams to escape the nightly bombing by Iraqis.
I guess it is too much to expect from a camel, but the reality is, the bivatans open their big mouth and write the checks. The normal poor people of Iran pay the price.
Yes, you overthrow the regime every night, unfortunately it's
by Mola Nasredeen on Sun Aug 15, 2010 09:52 PM PDThappening in your own head only. Call them Bivatan or bavatan but in reality it will be them who will stand up to any attack or invasion while the cheerleaders look on.
This is a long game, the
by Sargord Pirouz on Sun Aug 15, 2010 07:20 PM PDTThis is a long game, the neocons are playing. It will be 3 years before they really get their next big chance.
In the meantime, nuclear talks are scheduled to resume in September.
Bavafa
by Fair on Sun Aug 15, 2010 07:18 PM PDTWe are doing everything we can, and we will continue to do so. What I am saying is that as long as what we have at the top is a bunch of bivatans, we will be in a perpetual state of conflict, we will always be finding ourselves in this situation to lobby against hostile action against our country, and we will always be swimming upstream. Our power is insufficient to protect our country from the consequences of our bivatan leaders' policies. But we will try our best.
Yes, that is precisely what the IRI
by Fair on Sun Aug 15, 2010 07:12 PM PDTwants. Another war to change the subject from their incompetence and corruption, to get the people to rally behind a defense effort.
And it will be the people, not the bivatan IR leaders who will pay the price (like we did last time).
Like you said,
In the meantime the country will be ravaged by bombings
And it would have all been preventable.
Furthermore, you mentioned millions voted for Mousavi. Mousavi was and is strongly against the current foreign policy of the bivatans in Tehran.
As far as why I don't volunteer to overthrow the regime, I already have. Except I am not so stupid to tell you what actions I and others like me are taking in this regard. Why don't you volunteer to go back to Iran to defend against the upcoming attack by the zionists that you complain about?
Fair:
by Bavafa on Sun Aug 15, 2010 07:09 PM PDTNot necessarily a question to you since you have already stated your opposition to war
"If the man at the top in our country was not a bivatan like Khomeini, we would have NEVER had an 8 year war- the longest war of the 20th century"
But the f*&king man is at the top right now and the question is what are we going to do about that and what are going to do about the looming attack on Iran?
Do we want to allow the attack because of the lunatic on top?
Mehrdad
The first step
by Fair on Sun Aug 15, 2010 07:04 PM PDTMOOSIRvaPiaz is to realize what it is we need. So before we get too practical, we need to get our theory right first. If you go try to be practical on the basis of a shaky theory, your results will also be shaky at best. (Like 1979)
While it may be obvious to you and me that we need "a lot of things", you can see many Iranians do not agree on even what those things are.
Let us first reach consensus, have dialogue, and communicate. The fascists know how dangerous that is, and that is why they want to silence us. They are losing and will be defeated.
Why don't you volunteer and go to Iran and throw out the regime?
by Mola Nasredeen on Sun Aug 15, 2010 07:03 PM PDTThe Islamic Republic of Iran will survive any attack by the United States. And there are reasons for it beyond your, US, Israel, Mojahed or Monarchist control. Millions voted for Mousavi and Ahmadinejad. The mentioned millions of voters are against US attack. They'll unite one way or another and will fight back. They are the real patriots and the keepers of the Iranian land and soul. They will rally and support the war efforts against any invader. In the meantime the country will be ravaged by bombings.
Were they able to defeat the Talebans?
You stupid stupid fool
by benross on Sun Aug 15, 2010 07:00 PM PDTYou stupid stupid fool Americans. And I mean all Americans, Iranian-Americans included.
This is the front page of a major newspaper of Israel. Does it look like a country preparing to go to a war? You stupid stupid fools. Is this a kindergarten NIAC is representing?