Winners and Losers

The major losers include Ahmadinejad and Khamenei


Winners and Losers
by Masoud Kazemzadeh

This fourth round of sanctions plus one UNSC presidential statement makes five UNSC actions against the fundamentalist regime regarding its suspected nuclear weapons program. UNSC resolutions are INTERNATIONAL LAW. All these UNSC resolutions are demanding the fundamentalist regime to stop its uranium enrichment.

1. The biggest winner is the Obama administration. The Obama administration’s diplomacy was able to convince Russia and China, two states that have been close to the fundamentalist regime, to vote in favor of this resolution.

2. The major losers include Ahmadinejad and Khamenei. Their policies resulted in this major defeat for the fundamentalist regime. This could have easily been avoided if the regime accepted the Geneva deal back in October.

From the get go, President Obama had publicly and privately extended his hand to the fundamentalist terrorist regime in order to resolve the nuclear issue. Obama was in the White House from January 20, 2009. Khamenei could have simply accepted Obama’s offer of direct and unconditional negotiations. This would have meant doing one of several things. For example, Khamenei could have personally sat down wit President Obama (lets say in Switzerland) and directly discussed and resolved the main issues of contention. Or they could have authorized a high-level team to sit down and discuss all the main issues. President Obama sent (at least) two private letters to Khamenei, expressing his own willingness to directly negotiate with Khamenei based on mutual interest and mutual respect. President Obama put forth ONLY one primary issue: uranium enrichment. President Obama left out human rights, freedom, and democracy as issues of concern in dealing with the fundamentalist regime.

The question is WHY Khamenei refused to accept authorizing a high level team to sit down and negotiate all the main issues of concern. I think the most plausible answer is that Khamenei did not want to resolve the issues. The U.S. GOAL was, and is, to have the fundamentalist regime stop suspicious nuclear activities such as the fundamentalist regime’s uranium enrichment program. It appears to me that the most plausible explanation is that the fundamentalist terrorist regime really wants nuclear weapons and thus actual negotiations would be counter-productive to the regime’s primary goal of nuclear weapons or nuclear weapon capability. Therefore, Khamenei used stonewalling tactics.

3. THIS particular UNSC resolution is not very strong. The only sanction that could cause the collapse of the fundamentalist terrorist regime is a comprehensive sanction against purchase of crude oil and natural gas from the terrorist regime. Due to the opposition of Russia and China, real effective sanction has not been passed. This resolution, would not cause any major impact in Iran.

4. However, there is great psychological impact. The fundamentalist regime tried very hard to defeat this resolution and said so publically. The fundamentalist regime really did not want this particular UNSC sanction.

5. Many foreign firms will have more incentives to leave the market in Iran. Many more will interpret the world situation as becoming more hostile to the fundamentalist regime, thus would simply avoid entering the market in Iran. These will make the economic situation marginally worse in Iran, thus, undermining the ability of the fundamentalist regime to have more financial resources to buy off various individuals and sectors.

6. Although this resolution did not approve real strong economic sanctions on the terrorist regime, there is a possibility that it would encourage real tough sanctions being approved by the EU, Japan, and others. For example, if the U.S. Congress passed legislation prohibiting any company dealing with the Islamic Republic from being able to also have trade with American companies overseas or buy and sell in the U.S. then THAT would have real impact. Or if the EU passed real tough sanctions prohibiting purchase of crude oil and natural gas from the fundamentalist regime, that would have REAL IMPACT on the terrorist regime.

Purchase of crude oil and natural gas provides 40 to 90 BILLION dollars (depending on the price of oil and gas) DIRECTLY to Ahmadinejad and Khamenei every single year. They use this money to pay for their coercive apparatuses and buy support from individuals and groups. A real comprehensive economic sanction could cause the collapse of the fundamentalist regime.

7. This resolution also authorizes inspection of ships entering or leaving Iran. In my opinion, this is the most significant segment of the resolution. This would make the U.S. Navy interceding any and all ships going in and out of Iranian ports legal according to international law. This would make a de facto American "naval blockade" legal because it would be enforcing this UNSC resolution. If the terrorist regime’s IRGC confronted U.S. Navy, then according to international law, the terrorist regime is acting against international law.

8. Minor losers: Turkey and Brazil.

8a. The ruling party in Turkey, the AKP, is an Islamist party. Many were hoping to see AKP become more moderate and provide an example of an Islamist party combine Islam and democracy. The AKP’s embrace of the terrorist Hamas has gravely damaged AKP’s reputation, although in Turkey it would, at least in the short term, boost it. Hamas is an extremist violent anti-democratic group. Instead of working with the moderate PLO-Fatah, the Hamas seized Gaza and has refused new elections (because many believe it would lose to Fatah). Many regard Hamas killing of Fatah officials and members and seizer of Gaza as a coup.

By allying with the fundamentalist terrorist regime, AKP further adds to the perception that, it too, is an extremist group. AKP’s embrace of Islamic terrorists such as Hamas and the fundamentalist regime ruling Iran, cements EU’s fears of Turkey.

Had AKP instead embraced Fatah and condemned the fundamentalist regime ruling Iran, it would have enhanced the perception around the world that it is a moderate and democratic party. One could not embrace Ahmadinejad and Hamas and claim to be moderate and democratic. Hamas and Ahmadinejad have the blood of moderates on their hands.

8b. The fundamentalist regime wanted to use President Lula as "useful idiot." Ahmadinejad was using Lula and AKP to buy time and undermine the UNSC sanctions.


more from Masoud Kazemzadeh
Masoud Kazemzadeh


by Masoud Kazemzadeh on

Dear pas-e-pardeh,

Your point is valid. The corporations are there to make money, not to advance the human rights of the Iranian people. The governments have a more complicated task. On the one hand the governments have to help corporations increase their profits. But on the other hand, the government have to be concerned about national security. As the fundamentalist terrorist regime gets closer to the assembly of nuclear weapons, the governments around the world become more active in preventing it.

The regime ruling Iran is truly genocidal and terrorist and there is no way the world would allow this genocidal gang to have nuclear weapons. Please see the comments of German foreign minister on this issue. He says that sanctions on the fundamentalist regime would be costly for German businesses; however, it would be more costly for Germany and the world if the fundamentalist regime got nukes.




According to this report, even the Russians are cancelling the sale of S-300 to the fundamentalist regime.









If Iran did not possess oil, then the fundamentalists would probably have been overthrown long time ago. Fundamentalist are very good in some things and very bad in other things. Fundamentalists are very good in manipulating uneducated people to frenzy and mobilizing them. They are very good in suicide missions. Fundamentalist are very bad in economic development. Why? Because the fundamentalists are products of the complex mode of production in Iran. Iran’s mode of production being in part pre-modern pre-capitalist, in part modern and capitalist, and in part a combination of the two. A very large state sector exists along these modes.

Khomeini’s movement began in opposition to the Shah’s modernization programs of land reform, and female franchise in June 1963. In 1953, fundamentalists sided with the Shah and the CIA coup. This includes Ayatollah Kashani, Brujerdi, Fadaian Islam, etc.

Even after the revolution, Khomeini himself attacked Dr. Mossadegh and sided with the coup.



Khomeini himself served as the envoy between Ayatollah Uzma Brujerdi and the Shah secretly bringing Brujerdi’s messages to the Shah.

So, once fundamentalists come to power, they do not have a coherent economic plan. If Iran did not have the huge oil reserves that provides billions and billions of dollars every single year to the state, the fundamentalists could not survive.

Without oil, fundamentalists could not run the economy.

The world could live without the oil from Iran. The excess capacity in Saudi Arabia is the same as Iran’s oil export. With oil fields in Iraq increasing their output, global oil output would remain the same.

One of the main reasons China has not supported strong economic sanction in the fundamentalist regime is their need for oil. However, the combination of the terrorist fundamentalist regime with nuclear weapons is so dangerous that even the Chinese would come around as the terrorist regime gets closer to nuclear weapons assembly.







The article is under my real name. You click on my name and you will get all my main info. I am not sure what you are talking about. You are reading MY views.

My "game" is not hidden to be given away by "highly subjective adjectives." My "game" has been 100% open, transparent and explicit. I am a member of Jebhe Melli Iran-Kharej az Keshvar (Iran National Front-Abroad). Out explicit goal since 1979 has been the establishment of a secular democratic republic. We explicitly opposed, and oppose, the nezam velayat faghih’s dictatorship.


I use the term "fundamentalist regime" for Nezam Velayat Faghih. I could have used the phrase the System of Rule by a Shia Faghih (a cleric that can issue fatwa who is regarded as knowledgeable and competent in all matters). I avoid the term Islamic Republic of Iran, because the fundamentalist regime is neither Islamic nor a republic. And Khomeini’s love and feeling for Iran was in his own words "hich."

My use of the term "terrorist" is descriptive. The fundamentalist regime is in FACT a terrorist regime. Its primary mode of existence is and had been to use of violence against non-violent Iranians for political purposes. The fundamentalist regime has been killing, executing, assassinating, torturing, raping, and brutalizing the Iranian people. If one could not use the term "terrorist" for the fundamentalist regime, then one could not use this term for any thing.



UNSC resolutions are international law.



what is international law:  see the following:



Traditionally, international law consisted of rules and principles governing the relations and dealings of nations with each other, though recently, the scope of international law has been redefined to include relations between states and individuals, and relations between international organizations. Public_international_law, concerns itself only with questions of rights between several nations or nations and the citizens or subjects of other nations.


Sources of International Law

Customary law and conventional law are primary sources of international law. Customary international law results when states follow certain practices generally and consistently out of a sense of legal obligation. Recently the customary law was codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Conventional international law derives from international agreements and may take any form that the contracting parties agree upon. Agreements may be made in respect to any matter except to the extent that the agreement conflicts with the rules of international law incorporating basic standards of international conduct or the obligations of a member state under the Charter of the United Nations. International agreements create law for the parties of the agreement. They may also lead to the creation of customary international law when they are intended for adherence generally and are in fact widely accepted. Customary law and law made by by international agreement have equal authority as international law.

The United Nations, the most influential among international organizations, was created on June 26, 1945. The declared purposes of United Nations are to maintain peace and security, to develop friendly relations among nations, to achieve international cooperation in solving international problems, and to be a center for harmonizing the actions of the nations and attaining their common ends. The Charter of the United Nations has been adhered to by virtually all states. Even the few remaining non-member states have acquiesced in the principles it established. The

International Court of Justice

is established by the UN Charter as its principal judicial organ.






UN Charter

article 2:

sec 2: All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.


sec 5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.





article 24

sec 1:


In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf.


article 25

The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.



the above were direct quotes. 

now back to my own words: 


Israelis wiggles out of implementing the UNSC resolutions (224 and 338) by using tactics such as there is no partner for peace. They did give back Sinai to Egypt. They also say they will give back the Golan Heights to Syria if Syria would accept peace with them. They left Gaza (sort of and much of it). They were engaged in the negotiations with Arafat to give back something like 97% of the West Bank.

Israelis do violate international law such as building settlements in the West Bank.


The U.S. has protected Israel from more punitive punishments.


Not all violations of law are similar. For example, speeding 10 miles over the speed limit is against the law. Stealing a loaf of bread is against the law. Murdering 100 persons is also against the law.


Considering the nature of the fundamentalist terrorist regime and the horrific destruction of nuclear weapons, the actions of the fundamentalist terrorist regime is similar to murdering large number of people and thus a much more serious violation of law. In other words, Israeli violations kills thousands. The fundamentalist regime violations could result in the mass killing of hundreds of millions. Nuclear weapons in the hands of extremist terrorists is a whole different matter.



The activities of the fundamentalist terrorist regime has NOT been legitimate under the IAEA. You and I do not decide whether the behavior of the fundamentalist regime is legitimate or not legitimate. The IAEA Board of Governors are the judges of that. They VOTED several times and sent the matter to the UNSC. The IAEA is the referee. Actually the head of the IAEA at the time, Mohamad El Baradei was terribly hostile to the Bush administration and very friendly to the fundamentalist regime. After he left, he publicly admitted that he played with the words so that it would not provide help to the Bush administration. Lets be honest, even with a referee so hostile to the US and so protective of the fundamentalist regime that the actual facts led the case to be sent to the UNSC.

The new head of the IAEA is being more honest and is not playing politics and changing words in order to protect the fundamentalist regime.


The fundamentalist regime has a proven record of being terribly VIOLENT, terribly EXTREMIST, terribly TERRORIST, terribly DISHONEST. Such a regime is not a normal member of the world community. Such a regime cannot be allowed to have access to nuclear weapons.


Geneva deal was a very small step that the fundamentalist regime could have taken as the first baby step to show that it was not primarily interested in building nuclear WEAPONS. The fundamentalist regime would have to take many many many many many more steps to prove that its secret nuclear weapons program was peaceful. The terrorist regime had kept its nuclear program secret since its inception in 1985-86. The notion that in the middle of the war with Iraq, the fundamentalist regime wanted nuclear energy and not nuclear weapons can only be believed by total morons. Destroying evidence in Lavisan and Parchin before allowing IAEA inspectors is evidence of what?????????

Why in the world China and Russia have voted time and again at the IAEA and UNSC to punish the fundamentalist regime??????? The reason is that they have seen the evidence and they are convinced that the fundamentalist regime is assembling the structure of nuclear weapons. That is why China and Russia have been demanding the fundamentalist regime to stop uranium enrichment.


The world has no problem with providing the materials for nuclear medicine. They want the fundamentalist regime to STOP enrichment.


President Obama simply signed the continuation of the sanctions because nothing in the behavior of the fundamentalist regime had changed. It would have been totally irrational for the Obama administration to suspend sanctions on the fundamentalist regime at the time that the regime is violating international law. Since the fundamentalist terrorists had occupied the American embassy there have been sanctions on the terrorist regime. President Obama publically abandoned the policy of regime change. Instead, President Obama stated that he is willing to sit down and negotiate. The question is WHY Khamenei simply did not say: "we accept Obama offer of negotiations, I will send my team to sit down and resolve our differences." President Obama did not ask the terrorist regime to stop its genocidal slogans "marg bar Amrika" before any negotiations.


The economic situation in the U.S. and EU is not as good as it was before September 2008. The economic situation may become better or worse in the short term (1-2 years). At worst it would become a long recession like that one in Japan, going on for 10-15 years of bad economy.


The political systems in the U.S. and western Europe are highly legitimate. They are liberal democracies where the people can listen to this or that party or individual and vote one out or in as they so desire. Their economies are based on actual production of goods and services instead of just one natural resource (e.g., oil). Their states are strong, which means that they could implement policies to remedy the situation.

Fundamentalists such as Bin Laden and Khamenei who think that U.S. might collapse are simply deluding themselves.


On U.S. policy towards the fundamentalist regime. By and large, the fundamentalist regime has been contained. In 1979, Khomeini thought that he was going to instigate the overthrow of the Baathi regime in Iraq, the Saudi monarchy in Saudi Arabia, the governments in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and establish fundamentalist rule in much of the Islamic world. Where has Khomeini’s export of his fundamentalist revolution been successful?????????

American presidents policies towards the fundamentalist terrorist regime has not been based on vendetta. The fundamentalist regime is an extremist, violent, bellicose regime. Its main slogan has been "marg bar Amrika." It has killed many Americans via its terrorist proxies. Carter tried to have a normal relation with the regime, but Khomeini took the American hostage. Reagan sold these fundamentalist regime arms in the Iran-Contra deal. Clinton tried very hard to normalize relations. Clinton extended his hands and Khatami was president, but Khamenei did not allow detente with the U.S. Obama publically and privately tried to deal with the terrorist regime.


Finally, by definition an Iranian democrat is against the fundamentalist dictatorship. Therefore, yes, we democrats are against the ruling extremist dictatorship. The fundamentalist regime leaders are not fools, but they are not very bright either, just like Saddam and bin Laden.







If the fundamentalist regime is overthrown, then the BIGGEST WINNERS will be the wonderful people of Iran.




sorry for the typos







The only losers in this game ..

by reader1 on

.. are the poor ordinary hard-working Iranians.


If I May, Mr. Kazemzadeh!

by Landan-Neshin on

I wish you had introduced yourself at the bottom of your somewhat confused and factually inaccurate piece, so one would know who's views one is reading. However, I think your use of highly subjective adjectives gives your game away.

if, as you emphatically state, the UNSC resulotions were international law that should be obediently observed, then how would you answer Israel's 40 years of total rejection of all the UNSC resolutions especifically demanding the ending of the occupation of its neighbours' land since the 1967 war by withdrawing its forces. 

No one needs reminding of the tens of thousand of lives lost in the last 43 years of Israeli occupation of Arab and Palestinian lands and the continuing misery for the living millions as a result of total contempt with which Israel has treated the UN, and the Security Council resolutions, and still is busy doing the same at present following the raid on a civilian ship in international waters resulting in 9 civilian deaths, all, of course, thanks to the blind and obedient US support for whatever Tel Aviv might decide!

Whatever your views on IRI or its leadership, you can not but admit Mr. Kazemzadeh that Iran's nuclear activity, not only legitimate under the IAEA accord and protocols, it has not harmed a sole so far, food for your thoughts, I hope. 

Before coming to the point of winnwers and losers, I should point out one other flaw in your assumptions:

You state that Iran should have accepted the Geneva deal, whereas it took the fools in Washington only a day, after the Tehran accord between Iran, Turkey and Brazil, to reveal their true plan and objective behind the offer by the so called Vienna Four.

The US State Dept. in its rejection of the Tehran offer said " it is not enough because it does not deal with our main objective and demand for Iran to stop its enrichment activities"

Therefore, it wouldn't take a rocket scientist to deduct that the main objective of the Vienna Four was to get the bulk of Iran's low enriched uranium out and give no fuel back in return for the Tehran research reactor, unless, of course, Iran closed the Natanz plant for good.

It is worth reminding ourselves of Iran's given reason for changing its mind on the Geneva offer. They said let's do the swap simultaniously on Kish Island. Now if the Vienna Four were sincere in their offer, what could be wrong with such a plan? Hence, I suggest Iran's suspicions proved to be well placed.

Further on, you state that, initially president Obama extended a hand of friendship to Teharn which was rejected. Unless our understanding of 'friendly gestures' differ wildly, I'd like to remind you that one of the first official acts of Mr. Obama's, as the new US president, was to extend the "Iran Sanctions Bill" for another year, and that was well before his Norouz message. Now, if he really meant to start afresh with Iran and establish a friendlier atmosphere for possible direct contacts, symbolically, he could have removed some of the less sensetive articles in that act such as providing Iran Air with spare parts for its Boeing fleet.

On your other assumption that the new UNSC resolution would lead to more foreign firms leaving the Iranian market, let me just give you two reasons that nothing of the sort would be likely.

Firstly, the present dire and dark economic situation in the west has made the American and European businessmen so desperate that they would even contemplate selling their sisters down the river for a quid or a buck. Agreed, they might find the route a bit more difficult, but sell they will, which brings me to the second reason, why they will sell come "Hell or High Water" its beacuse they are dealing with a country with high credit rating in money markets for its rich energy resourses, and also because it buys in cash and has negligable foreign debt, as opposed to the near bankrupt American and European business people.

As for Russia and China, don't worry, they know what they are doing. So does Tehran. They need each other for a set of different raesons. The key here is that if these neighbouring countries, both nuclear powers and both rising world powers don't see Iran as a 'strategic threat' as Washington does, someone in Washington must have got it badly wrong. You only need to listen to the fuming and desperate American business community about their 5+1 presidents' Iran policy to discover what fools have been running the show in Washington. Dont believe me? then ask Garry Sick, Henry kissinger, Z. Brezhinsky and a raft of other US strategists who should know! 

I don't think I should go any fgurther, but it is worth reminding oneself that the words and deeds of the last five and the present US presidents on IRI has proved one thing beyond any shadow of the doubt that the American policy on Iran is driven by spite and vendetta and not by any individual persident's reason or desire to resolve the old wounds. 

One might say the same thing about the IRI leadership, Yes, but I don't' think if thousand of Iranian troops were stationed in Canada and Mexico and were threatening Washington every day, the US leadership would have beahaved differently. 

Finally, you might be bitterly against everything that the IRI leadership stands for, but be absolutely certain of one thing:they are no fools.    



Mr. Masoud kazemzadeh

by MahmoudAhmadinejad on

I just have one question to ask you.

Where did you buy your crystal ball from? You not only tell the future, you tell the past too. That is amazing.


Just wondering

by MahmoudAhmadinejad on

Will they stick to these sanctions if the oil production was reduced? Then the oil will go to $500 a barrel and China and others will be happy to sign a fixed 10 years contract at $300 EXW or FCA with a large down payment to secure the deal with Iran. Even worse can happen if there was an oil sanction by Iran or OPEC. especially with the recent issues with Israel and Palestine, it might not take much efforts to unite the oil producers.



money is key

by pas-e-pardeh on

as the author points out, so long as this regime receives tens of billions of dollars in oil revenue annually, they can buy batons, tear gas, bullets and thugs.  That's a big hurdle to overcome for ordinary people.  Oil revenue is paying for oppression.  This government could not have survived without it. Ahmadinejad has received $345 BILLION in the past 5 years.  No wonder they are holding on to power for dear life.  It's a lot of money- and power.  This is not a government.  It's a heist.  Heist of a nation's wealth.  

On the other hand, I don't think there is international resolve- may be not even American resolve, to stop buying oil from Iran, even for a short period.  


FYI learn to use paragraphs

by amgw4 on

Listing a bunch of half truths in numbers doesn't give them credibility. I don't want to waste time responding to your tortured assertions.


Masoud Kazemzadeh


by Masoud Kazemzadeh on



You are confusing a whole bunch of stuff.

1. The FIRST UNSC action on the nuclear maters was the UNSC Presidential Statement on March 29, 2006. The FIRST Resolution on nuclear maters was 1696 of July 31, 2006.

Ahmadinejad became president in 2005.


2. The first sanctions by the U.S. was by President Carter and it was due to the Islamic fundamentalist terrorists occupation of the American embassy.

3. President Clinton’s May 1995 sanctions were done BEFORE Khatami became president. Khatami became president in 1997.

4. Actually Khatami’s policies reduced pressures on the fundamentalist terrorist regime. When Rafsanjani was president of the terrorist regime, the regime’s agents were arrested, convinced and imprisoned in several countries for carrying out terrorist activities such as assassinations. EU countries, for example, had withdrawn their ambassadors in protest of IRI’s terrorist activities on European soil BEFORE Khatami was president.

5. The FBI stated that they had solid evidence that the fundamentalist regime was responsible for the al Khobar (American miliary compound in Saudi Arabia) bombings. President Clinton would have bombed facilities in Iran if Nategh Nouri was president. But because Khatami was president and was carrying out some reforms, President Clinton decided not to bomb Iran.

President Clinton wanted to appease Khatami.  So, he did a bunch of things.  For example, Sec of State regreted the CIA coup.  Of course that was bizaar, because the Islamic fundamentalists had cooperated with the CIA and the Shah in the coup against Dr. Mossadegh-JM. 

Clinton also put the PMOI on the terrorism list in order to reward Khatami.


6. When the secret nuclear activities of the terrorist regime were exposed in 2002 and 2003, Europeans and Americans did not do much because Khatami suspended enrichment. If instead of Khatami and his policy of suspension, Ahmadinejad was president in 2003, perhaps instead of invading Iraq, President Bush might have invaded (or at least bombed) Iran.

7. This resolution imposes only minor sanctions on the terrorist regime.

8. It does, however, open the door to MORE serious stuff.





Sanctions intensified when Khatami was in office

by amgw4 on

And were enacted by president Clinton. So it's ridiculous to blame it on Ahmadinejad and Khamenei. These new sanctions also seem pointless as they add virtually nothing to the old ones. Their only achievement is to possibly upset some Iranians, which is pointless in democracy.