Should the latest episode of Israeli calls for bombing Iran be taken seriously, or is it – like the many cases prior to it – yet another (politically motivated) false alarm? Like clockwork, Israeli alarm bells have gone off in the past fifteen years with predictable regularity. Bellicose statements by Israeli officials have been followed by alarmist analyses describing military measures as both necessary and inevitable. And then, without any explanation, the bellicosity recedes and Iran and Israel return to their more normal levels of animosity.
By now, as WikiLeaks documents show, U.S. officials tend to view the Israeli threats as a pressure tactic to get the United States and Europe to adopt tougher measures against Iran, and to refrain from any compromise with Tehran over the nuclear issue. These intense periods of Israeli warnings about its imminent intent to bomb Iran have indeed tended to coincide with times when the international community has been debating additional sanctions on Tehran.
This latest call for war is no different.
Next week, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is due to publish a report expected to detail evidence on the Iranian government's suspected past weaponization activities. The Obama administration and the French government have pushed the IAEA to take a tougher line against Tehran. The IAEA report will be followed by a U.S.-EU push for harsher sanctions against Iran at the U.N. Security Council, where Western powers will meet stiff resistance from Russia and China.
The Obama administration has also launched a campaign to report the Iranian government to the Security Council due to its alleged attempt to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States. Here again, the aim is to convince a skeptical international community to go along with new sanctions.
For Israel, the tactic of threatening war to secure sanctions has been a gift that never stops giving. The Israelis press the U.S. and the European Union to opt for more sanctions by arguing that absent new punitive measures, Israel will be "forced" to strike Iran unilaterally. Washington then uses the Israeli threat to press Russia,China and the rest of the international community to adopt new sanctions topreserve the peace. The choice is, the tactic dictates, between sanctions and war; not between confrontation and diplomacy.
To retain some minimal level of credibility, each new round of saber rattling contains new elements to set it apart from previous episodes. This time around, the narrative reads that intense debates are taking place within the Israeli cabinet between proponents and opponents of unilateral Israeli strikes. What are supposed to be confidential, internal deliberations have now been leaked to the public and the whole world can follow the debate over war and peace unfold like a bizarre reality TV show.
While skepticism about Israel’s saber rattling is warranted, it is also dangerous to completely dismiss it out of hand. At a minimum, there are two important factors that indicate the past pattern of empty threats may be changing.
First, stiff resistance from the U.S. military has in the past forced Israel to think twice about any unilateral strike against Iran. Pentagon officials believe that Iran will not differentiate between an American and an Israeli attack. As such, Israeli military strikes will beget significant Iranian retaliation against American targets. In July 2008, in the midst of a massive Israeli effort to convince former President George W. Bush to attack Iran before he left office, then chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen warned that an Israeli strike on Iran would prove "extremely stressful" for U.S. forces in the region. "This is a very unstable part of the world and I don't need it to be more unstable," he cautioned.
But with President Barack Obama in election mode, Benjamin Netanyahu may sense an opening. At a time when the Republicans are attacking Obama for being insensitive to Israeli interests, Obama cannot afford another confrontation with Netanyahu. In spite of the danger Israel would put U.S. troops under if it attacked Iran, Obama’s ability to exact a political price on Israel for doing so is currently limited.
Second, as I document in A Single Roll of the Dice – Obama’s Diplomacy with Iran (Yale University Press, 2012), sanctions and military action are not either-or options in Israel’s view. Rather, they are complementary. While sanctions systematically weaken Iran and reduce its capabilities, including its ability to muster nuclear advances, military action is needed to push back Iran if it reachesimportant nuclear milestones, in Israel’s view. Sanctions can slow down Iran’s nuclear advances, but military action can set the nuclear program back, albeit only temporarily. Alone, neither approach is satisfactory for Israel. Only when the two are combined will the Jewish state feel confident that the balance of power is securely locked in its favor.
But with Washington having little left to sanction in Iran, and Israel’s credibility reaching a new low as a result of its many false alarms, how much longer can this game of brinkmanship and sable rattling be pursued before it turns into a self-fulfilling prophecy?
First published in CNN's globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com.
Dr. Trita Parsi is President of the National Iranian American Counci and the author of Treacherous Alliance – The Secret Dealings of Iran, Israel and the United States. Dr. Parsi will be releasing his upcoming book A Single Roll of the Dice – Obama's Diplomacy with Iran (Yale University Press), early 2012.
|Recently by Trita Parsi||Comments||Date|
|Bibi’s Three Steps Forward, One Back|
|Oct 13, 2012|
|Jun 22, 2012|
|Give Obama Elbow Room on Iran|
|Jun 15, 2012|
|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|
Iran Israelby Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Tue Nov 08, 2011 10:05 AM PST
The fight between Arabs and Israel is not ours. The so called war mongering of Israel started after IRI. Before for decades we had no problems. Only after IRI comes and makes threats Israel responds in kind.
I refuse to join ANY organization that wants to take up this fight. My position is: Iran should recognize Israel and have normal relations. Let the Arabs and Israel work out their problems. It is not an Iranian problem. And to me those who want to get involved should do it as individuals. Not as Iranian representatives. If Mr. Parsi wants to take on Israel then it is HIS business not mine. I have got up to my neck about this ***. We have problems of our own to solve.
In other words if NIAC wants me it should have a most a neutral position on Israel. Otherwise I am out and that is it. I do not agree this is helping Iran.
Amir: You are doing yourself a disservice…by Bavafa on Tue Nov 08, 2011 11:11 AM PST
By pick ‘n choosing sound-bites such as “traitor” or “cowards”
I dare you quote me in the full sentence and context of which it was used?
What would be your definition of those who are not willing to fight to free themselves yet solicit [mercenaries] army to do the fighting for them?
So please, don’t walk the path of the likes of Kazemzadeh as you are better than that.
Slurs such as his in this thread proves only:
lack of intelligent
lack of integrity
And I believe you have both, but sadly cannot say the same thing about him. For that reason, he has long lost my respect to even engage him in a conversation.
'Hambastegi' is the main key to victory
Dear Veiled Prophet of Khorasanby Abarmard on Tue Nov 08, 2011 09:09 AM PST
NIAC is not focused on Israel but will address pro warmongering policies for some obvious reasons. Those representatives in Israeli system are doing their part to gain support for a war with Iran and NIAC does its part to counter that drive. Not answering false accusations to make false cases against Iran will only work against the Iranian interests. We have experienced that route for many years before NIAC took the challenge, and the results speak for themselves.
This doesn't mean that any members of NIAC have anything against Israel as a country but specific policies, all pro war policies that they stand against. NIAC doesn't initiate fights but responds to warmongering parties. NIAC supports dialogue and never gives in to unfounded accusations or threats. I expect this from NIAC and wish them to become even stronger voice against warmongers. Stopping those individuals who bank on wars and sanctions benefits us all.
What is legalby Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Tue Nov 08, 2011 08:58 AM PST
There is no law between nations other than law of power. The strong win the weaker ones lose or make deals. We may say "illegal" all we want. It makes no difference and never did.
Was Nader Shah sacking India legal? Or Arab invasion of Iran legal. History is filled with those who argued law; even won in court but lost in practice. One notable is Dr. Mossadegh.
We do a lot better if we stopped stamping our feet. Do not worry about law. Make powerful friends and you are fine. Make powerful enemies and you are ***. How long do people want to live in a dream of the perfect non real world.
Dear Mehrdadby Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Tue Nov 08, 2011 08:27 AM PST
I have made it very clear my incredily low opinion of Dai and you know it. The point I was making was that people go with gut feelings. NIAC needs to get that feeling right. Otherwise it will not get far with some people.
I am a pragmatist pro Iran person. This has put me at times against various groups. To me Israel; Palestine do not matter. I am willing to give up the nuclear thing and make other deals. And specially do not want to pick a fight with Israel.
By taking on Israel directly NIAC is picking an unncessary fight. Who is right or wrong does not matter. It is who has power that matters. We got to make deals which are good for Iran; put aside idealism and go for realism.
Bavafa, unlike you...by AMIR1973 on Tue Nov 08, 2011 08:05 AM PST
I don't go around calling others hatfeul names such as "traitors" or accuse them of "absolute slavery" -- so you are in no position to lecture me.
Your "universal principles" of justice are the same tired and hateful anti-Americanism promoted by the wonderful revolution of 1979 that helped Iran get into its current mess. Once again, spare me your lectures.
Has a court/relevant authority ruled the sanctions "illegal"?by AMIR1973 on Tue Nov 08, 2011 07:59 AM PST
Has a court with appropriate "jurisdiction" or other such relevant authority ruled the sanctions "illegal"? "Illegal" has a specific meaning and is not merely left to the opinion of highly biased individuals who see fit to conduct such morally questionable activities as meeting with IRI officials, etc. Such individuals (or organizations) can say all they want that sanctions are "illegal", but it doesn't make it so. Sorry.
Amir: unlike you perhaps…by Bavafa on Tue Nov 08, 2011 07:56 AM PST
I guide my life and decisions based on principal of justice for all and not sheer of hate or absolute slavery to the adopted land.
Did you miss the part in my comment that my support would be for a full retaliation against the aggressor which could be IRI for all that matter.
VPK jaan:Much of the attack and the so called proof, mainly accusation, has come from Dai and those who feed from the same hand, you can read all about it here
'Hambastegi' is the main key to victory
Illegal sanctions...by Mohammad Ala on Tue Nov 08, 2011 08:16 AM PST
Often in the Western media one finds accusations that third world countries are not complying with international law and ethical standards. This article discusses such a violation by certain Western countries to an agreement that they themselves initiated and signed.
According to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the United States was of the primary architect of the Chicago Convention and the ICAO was created to carry out the goals of the Chicago Convention. ICAO is a specialized agency of the UN charged with coordinating and regulating international air travel.
The Convention on International Civil Aviation is also known as the Chicago Convention. The Convention establishes rules of airspace, aircraft registration and safety, and establishes specific requirements regarding the signators' responsible in international air travel.
The preamble provides ". . . the undersigned governments having agreed on principles and arrangements in order that international civil aviation may be developed in a safe and orderly manner and international air transport services maybe established on the basis of equality of opportunities . . . "
The sanctions placed by the United States and supported by the Western countries are contrary to the goals of the Article 44 of the Chicago Convention in which the USA is a signatory. A report issued by ICAO on October 4, 2004, concluded that the Western countries are violating their own accord and treating a member country differently, contrary to the provisions of the Convention.
The USA sanctions affect aviation safety which the international community has not yet been able to resolve. The issue has become political and has nothing to do with international norms that the Western countries expect member countries to abide by.
Following several assessments by ICAO, a report was issued on May 9, 2005 stating that the USA embargo had endangered the safety of the civil aviation in Iran and violates the provisions of the Chicago Convention. One of the recommendation of ICAO is for the Western countries " . . . should recommit to the Chicago Convention (July 17, 2005)"
The Chicago Convention states clearly that . . . "licenses may be issued for the exportation of goods, services and technology to insure the safety of civil aviation and safe operation of US origin commercial aircraft (31 C.F.R. 2005). This wording would permit US aircraft parts and components to be exported to Iran directly or through a third party.
ICAO experts have found that the US sanctions have placed Iran's civil aviation in danger. Several of their findings were reported on May 9, 2005; for example, several thousands, mostly Iranians have been killed in Iran because of mechanical failures of aircraft. The USA has even prevented the Boeing Company from repairing parts that were found to be defective in six aircraft which have been detrimental to the safety of flights in Iran and other countries to where these six Boeing aircrafts fly (ICAO report, p. 1). The Radar for international airports in Tehran and Shiraz needed spare parts for safe operation. Not only Iranian airlines have been at risk, but other airlines which flew into those airports. Because of sanctions, even service bulletins and modifications kits are not available to Iranian airlines.
An interview of two ICAO officers (in Peru and Canada) in 2010 confirmed that this organization is committed to international law and policy and will continue its efforts in seeking to remove the sanctions that are applied to civilian aircraft equipment, spare parts, and safety bulletins. Civilian aviation safety affects not only Iranians but all nationalities and should supersede political differences among nations. The countries that signed the Chicago Convention should abide by its principles, especially those in Articles 4 and 44.
If the United Nations is to be respected, its organizations such as ICAO must have the authority to carry out the mission of the Chicago Convention. Countries that have signed the Chicago Convention must abide by its rules and goals to promote the safety of civil aviation internationally.
The court of Mohammad Ala (COMA) has issued its ruling,,,,by AMIR1973 on Tue Nov 08, 2011 07:23 AM PST
Unfortunately for him, sanctions against the IRI aren't "illegal", nor were those against South Africa and Burma. Nor has the UN Security Council (even in spite of the veto power of the murderous and rotten IRI backers like Russia and Communist China) ruled sanctions against the IRI to be illegal.
Sanctions are illegalby Mohammad Ala on Tue Nov 08, 2011 07:18 AM PST
The sanctions against Iranian people are illegal (e.g., Chicago Convention).
Abarmard, good points.
Fantastic editorialby MOOSIRvaPIAZ on Tue Nov 08, 2011 05:31 AM PST
better than alot of todays so called experts.
Well, there is proofby AMIR1973 on Tue Nov 08, 2011 04:30 AM PST
That the President-for-Life of NIAC served as a liaison for the UN envoy of the Islamist terrorist regime.
Regarding NIAC ; Proofby Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Tue Nov 08, 2011 03:31 AM PST
Abarmard brings out a very good point about NIAC. There is no proof for some of the charges. But the point that is missing is people do not need proof to not support a group. You just need a gut feeling.
Proof is required in a court room. But joining or not joining a group is a personal matter. I do not watch Fox and have not for decades. I did not need a proof of bias for that. I don't let my kids watch commercial TV and never asked for any "proof". That is why the proof argument is not going to help. NIAC needs to reach for the hearts of Iranian American people. Most of whom are very deeply anti-IRI: yes I do not speak for us all. The Israel issue is divisive and in my opinion best avoided.
Getting back to IRI support. I know a lot of Iranian Americans. Most including practicing Muslims do not like IRI. Reasons are different but feeling is the same. Therefore NIAC needs to avoid any perception of support for IRI.
Bavafa’s version of Israel should be wiped off the pages of timeby Masoud Kazemzadeh on Mon Nov 07, 2011 09:14 PM PST
Bavafa/Mehrdad's OWN words:
Sun Nov 06, 2011 08:22 AM PST
It is long overdue for the world to stop and stand up to the Israeli hostage taking of the world by constantly creating atmosphere for war in order to continue its occupation of its neighbors.
The far more urgent matter is to pull this decayed tooth and bring sanity to foreign diplomacy.
If the war breaks out, I do wish and support full retaliation against the attacking nation.
'Hambastegi' is the main key to victory
Dear bahmani,by AMIR1973 on Mon Nov 07, 2011 08:58 PM PST
Be careful, a couple cyber-chomaghdar might be coming after you, since your response involved more wit, humor, and intelligence than they are comfortable with. Take care.
Advocates of violence against U.S. pat each other on backby AMIR1973 on Mon Nov 07, 2011 08:59 PM PST
It's truly heartwarming to see that individuals who have been allowed into this country are expressing their full support for violent attacks against the U.S. in the event of a direct military conflict between the U.S. and the IRI. How touching!
Don't dismiss the ferocity of the US militaryby bahmani on Mon Nov 07, 2011 08:49 PM PST
Great observations and analysis. It only makes me wish and wonder what you would do, if you focused your scope on Iran and the Iranian strategy in all this geo-play, with the same zeal?
But I guess, as usual Iran is the virgin-innocent in all this.
And of course it is always Uncle Sam, and his Jewish bookkeeper, Uncle Sol's fault.
Iraq, and 10 years of Afghanistan have only tried the patience of the US military. Simply, they have had it with strategy and negotiated political solutions. Blame the asses in charge of Pakestan.
The success of drone attacks driven from Las Vegas dropping liquid fire anywhere in the world, is proof that precision targeted attacks are not only effective, but more importantly cost effective. Drone drivers don't even get PTSD. They do get a PS3 though.
Were Iran to even contemplate a retaliatory response to a US or Israeli strike that justifiably takes out Iran's nukes, then, the entire Iranian government leadership, every council guardian, every IRGC commander, will be forced to leave their posh villas in smog-free North Tehran, and seek shelter in the smog-full Southern Tehran slums, and sewer pipes.
They're not about to rough it.
A quick strike on Iran's nuke factories, combined with a simultaneous decapitation of the top leadership by drones or Navy SEALS, would throw Iran into complete chaos. No Neighbor (Iraq or Afghanistan) would attack Iran, they are too busy cleaning up after the mess the Americans have made.
If Khamenei, Ahmadinejad, and the IRGC and Rafsanjani and the next 30 dweebs in line, were out of the picture in 36 hours of sustained surgical strikes with minimal civilian and collateral damage, does ANYONE think that Iran can withstand that, or better, even fight back?
I doubt it. No one in Iran is that religious. Ever seen or even heard of an Iranian suicide bomber? NO. That's because even the top hardliners would rather be rich than die. The people that work for them know that too. No one will put up a fight.
In fact at that point, after such a leveling attack, Iranians both outside and inside Iran would be so stunned, and paralyzed, that Sir Richard Branson could fly in freaking Reza Pahlavi v=by hot air balloon, and put him right back on his dad's old dusty throne, and no one would so much as notice.
Iranians are that fickle. The youth in Iran everyone pins their hopes on for change, don't even know why the Shah was bad at this point in time.
All they really want is high-speed internet (for porn). And maybe an Ibiza-style dance club or two in Tehran, and the chance to bang Shirin in the parking lot.
We didn't survive 2500 years of consistent oppressive rule, by being a people that have lofty principles, now did we?
To read more bahmani posts visit: //brucebahmani.blogspot.com/
Agha Mammad: A rather well response….by Bavafa on Mon Nov 07, 2011 08:42 PM PST
To a rather ingenious, divisive and less than intelligent question. I enjoyed reading your response. My kudos.
'Hambastegi' is the main key to victory
Mammad get Educated, READ Quranby IranFirst on Mon Nov 07, 2011 09:14 PM PST
First, Your personal attack and name calling which is the sign of your
lack of logic and inability to respond to my argument is ignored, now
back to main argument that you could NOT respond to.
Second, I provided the relevant ayeh from Quran and Hadith that clearly
PERMITS raping and having sex with slaves and prisoners. Why don't you
READ Quran. I know its shocking (maybe not to you , but to
people of the world in 21st century) that in Quran and the verses I
mentioned, Allah allows Muslims to rape women captured in wars even if
they are married (Q.4:24 and 4:3)
When one reads the biography of Muhammad learns that he raped the
prettiest women he captured in his raids on the same day he killed their
husbands. This is why anytime a Muslim army subdues another nation,
they called them kafir and raped their women. Pakistani soldiers raped
up to 250,000 Bengali women in 1971 and massacred 3,000,000 unarmed
civilians when their religious leader decreed that Bangladeshis are
un-Islamic. This is why the prison guards in the Islamic regime of Iran
rape the women before killing. They are accused of being apostates and
the enemies of Allah for opposing the regime. That is exactly what
Muhammad did. Anyone who opposed him was deemed as opposing God and his
blood was halal. If you don't agree with this barbaric practice (I
hope), that is your choice, but other Muslims (such as many in IRI) have
chosen to follow Quran for this matter. When these IRI thugs are put on trial, they can all say it IS in Quran and not heir fault. Why
not point to the source of the problem which is Islam and Quran which
allows this (and many other barbaric acts).
Third, Your Numbers Argument is wrong. You are insinuating that
because there are large number of Iranians who are practicing Muslims,
therefore they MUST be right. Other Muslims have used similar tired
argument (they actually refer to the 1.2 billion number) and say how can
they all be wrong. Well, numbers do not make an argument right. There
was a time that the whole human population (definitely Muslims, based on
what they read in Quran), believed that earth is flat. But off course
they were all wrong. I will give you another example there are more than
1.3 people in China, doe that make Communism right? One might say,
Chinese are communists in name only, but the same is true about many
Muslims too . Thanks to another barbaric aspect of Islam no one can
openly leave Islam, without being jailed prosecuted or killed (ala
Christian priest currently in jail in IRI).
Fourth, It seems you are insinuating that I am insulting the practicing Muslims. Why should they be insulted , by me printing verses from Quaran? Aren't Muslims proud of Quran and what's in it? If anyone, I (and perhaps many other people in Iran and around the world ) are insulted
by Islam and Muslims who impose these barbaric laws on us. I am insulted
when the women in my family are forced to be put in body-bags/chadors, I
am insulted when Muslims kill and torture Iranians, for bogus charges
of Moharebeh (fighting with god), I am insulted when Islam (that you are
defending) lashes and cuts limbs of people. I am insulted when Islam blinds or stones someone based some archaic code of "law" (that can not be questioned)......
Please READ Quaran (translated) and Hadith and History of Islam
Interesting story that I have to share hereby Siavash300 on Mon Nov 07, 2011 07:18 PM PST
Not long ago, I came across a jewish man who happened to be a close relative of the person who created computer virus and paralysed mullah's nuclear facilities computers in Iran. He explained that was the easiest way to go in dealing with ruling mullahs in Iran and didn't cost any human lives. He further explained that if the issue of developing uranium goes further, there would leave no other choices for Israel to take a military action in order to save the lives of their own citizens against lunatic mullahs. In that scenario, he said the targets would be Basij and revolutionary guard sites with intention of hiting just those targets along with nuclear facilicities. He said if only those targets getting hit, it attracts the support of Iranians or rather oppositions inside iran, but if the target hit the civilains, the Iranians would be united and mobilized against foreign attack. He said Israel doesn't want that happens. They want the support of Iranian people. They know better than that. They want to be on the side of people against ruling mullahs with the least huamn lives to be lost. After all the whole purpose of attack is to postpond the development of uranium to the level that is safe and not dangerous to state of Israel. He said Israel is trying to save the lives of their own citizens by targeting those nuclear sites and postponding destructive,lunatic idea of mullahs against jews.
Now, how stupid it can be to lose the lives of our brothers and sisters in Iran for the sake of lizard eater Arabs who killed over millions of our people under Saddam not long ago. The Arabs who invaded Iran throughout the centuries and destroyed our country numerous time.
He was one the nicest, kind hearted man I ever met in my life.
There are only unfoundedby Abarmard on Mon Nov 07, 2011 07:03 PM PST
There are only unfounded accusations against NIAC without any specifics. NIAC is clear about human rights issues in Iran and their policy in regard to sanctions is not hidden.
I. About sanctions:
Simply no one can provide any historical example as when sanctions had worked or when it was implemented the population had benefited from it. No one can provide that sanctions don't lead to war or pushes the population to rise against their system. On the contrary taking out any possible capital or direct investments out of hands of general public puts it right in the hand of system's officials.
Certainly taking jobs, money and livelihood out of the hands of people will not result in empowering them. Even if they rise against the system, it would not be from political and social choice but rather forceful economic shortcomings. That has nothing to do with democracy, freedom, or social growth. Most probably if succeeds, we get out of one ditch to fall in a well.
Certainly the path to democracy requires a different route. The actual result from sanctions are that people become poorer with less capital/wealth to enjoy individualism and personal growth, which in turn creates higher corruption and more selfish, short-term gain mentality.
Take a look at Iran today. Most of its economic changes taking place are in direct relation with tighter sanctions. Recently most complains has been that IRCG is gaining more control over the economy. That is because any private investment firm or company is not allowed to work with Iran on bigger projects. Isn’t it anything other than this? I can bring many examples that provide proof for my argument.
II. NIAC has a Concrete policy in regard to warmongers and threat to peace and stability:
NIAC has it right. Israel is a concern to many Iranians. Before implementing any policy, NIAC asks its members for input. Many independent polls have shown that Iranians are concerned about Israel. Israel is pushing for war with Iran and whether you prefer it or not, it's a matter of concern for Iranian Americans. Perhaps maybe some of the Iranian Americans have some sort of linkage to that country. By being against war with Iran you are not pro IRI. Hope this clarifies to those who care to learn. NIAC's take on sanctions, which ultimately leads to war has been based on a simple logic that sanctions hurt Iranians and can put Iranian Americans in harms way.
III. No proof just talk:
Finally when one says NIAC supports IRI without providing any documents, proof or logical explanations other than NIAC's anti sanctions policy, they are not saying anything but being the mouthpiece of those anti Iranian groups who push for war by supporting heavy sanctions and blockades. Those people have war in their mind. Reason for that could range from Israeli political agenda to misguided political ideologies. Mostly are blind to realities of historical events, regional developments, foreign interventions and specific strategic objective to gain access to the wealth of the region.
Actually there is no coincidence that most anti NIAC is directly or indirectly support Israeli based policies. To say that I have learned that NIAC is more in line with IR policy, one is responsible to provide examples based on documentations or events that have taken place.
Ron Paul is also pro IRI: //original.antiwar.com/paul/2011/11/04/iran-sanctions-act-definite-step-toward-war/
The old Iranian mentality to accuse without proof is fading out of new generation. Also many are now maturing politically and realize that information can be found easier than ever. There is no need for rumors or gossip.
I am happy to see that more people are joining and supporting NIAC. Stronger NIAC means stronger Iranian American community. Stronger NIAC means the Iranian American community will have somewhere to go where as policies are concerned.
Let's make this voice stronger.
Questions for Mammadby Masoud Kazemzadeh on Mon Nov 07, 2011 06:55 PM PST
M: I am a pacifist.
MK: A pacifist is a person who opposes the use of violence, INCLUDING in self-defense. Your earlier positions are anti-pacifist and pro-war.
This is what YOU wrote: "The war and fighting will be in Iran, not in the U.S. If war broke out and I were young, I would go back to Iran and fight any invader. My entire family has a long track record of fighting to defend Iran in actual wars."
by Mammad on Mon Nov 07, 2011 06:53 AM PST
"Any attack by any nation on Iran must be responded to with full force and without any hesitation, including attacks on any U.S. allies in the region that might allow such a crime takes place using their airspace, land, waters, and bases. The aggressor must be published."
MK: Did you lie when you wrote explicitly that if you were younger you would go back to Iran and FIGHT any invader???????? Do you realize that advocating attacks on any U.S. ally is in contradiction to being a pacifist?
Mammad: It is not part of asymmetrical warfare, as you claim. The word is self-clear: it is a warfare, meaning between armed forces. Asymmetric warfare means not a head-to-head war between regular armed forces and not a conventional war, but hit and run.
MK: Apparently you do not know the basic definitions. Here is what a credible source such as CDI writes about the definition of asymmetrical warfare. Asymmetrical warfare INCLUDES the use of terrorism.
"The review concludes that the U.S. military can, and must, be restructured to successfully undertake fourth-generation warfare against asymmetric threats — the kind of threats posed by terrorist networks."
"This primarily involves land forces (although targets can be naval vessels and air assets) — irregular or guerilla warfare carried out by groups motivated by ideology, revenge, lust for power, ethnicity, religion or some other unifying bond. Such irregulars often are associated with or supported by regular military forces, but in the late 20th century this was less often the case. In fact there are countervailing trends. There are more small groups or very loosely knit organizations which employ terror by threatening to or actually attacking civilian populations and infrastructure — the so-called asymmetric style of warfare. Some receive support, safe harbor, or encouragement from nations while others seem to operate with little support"
If you accept Wiki, this is what it says:
"Asymmetric warfare is war between belligerents whose relative military power differs significantly, or whose strategy or tactics differ significantly.
"Asymmetric warfare" can describe a conflict in which the resources of two belligerents differ in essence and in the struggle, interact and attempt to exploit each other's characteristic weaknesses. Such struggles often involve strategies and tactics of unconventional warfare, the "weaker" combatants attempting to use strategy to offset deficiencies in quantity or quality. Such strategies may not necessarily be militarized. This is in contrast to symmetric warfare, where two powers have similar military power and resources and rely on tactics that are similar overall, differing only in details and execution.
The term is frequently used to describe what is also called "guerrilla warfare", "insurgency", "terrorism", "counterinsurgency", and "counterterrorism", essentially violent conflict between a formal military and an informal, poorly-equipped, but elusive opponent."
MK: The IRI is regarded as good at asymmetrical warfare because of its use of, among others, the Lebanese Hezbollah (via IRGC-Qods Force in Lebanon), Hamas, IRGC-Qods Force use of its own as well as proxies in Iraq to kill Americans, etc. The IRI has been attacking the Americans in Iraq not directly but with the use of asymmetrical methods as it did the Americans in Lebanon in the 1980s, and Israel via Hezbollah, Hamas, and PIJ.
For example, if there is war between the U.S. and IRI, if the IRI were to use IRGC-QF or proxies to blow up oil fields in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia, then that would be called asymmetric warfare. Similarly, the IRI could use IRGC-QF to blow up military installations inside the U.S. That is an example of asymmetrical warfare.
If asymmetrical warfare is used solely against military targets, then it is not defined as terrorism, but it is still asymmetrical warfare.
The questions I posed to YOU was this. Given that you EXPLICITLY advocated the following VIOLENT response by IRI:
"Any attack by any nation on Iran must be responded to with full force and without any hesitation, including attacks on any U.S. allies in the region that might allow such a crime takes place using their airspace, land, waters, and bases. The aggressor must be published."
The question is what you yourself will do.
Lets take the word "terrorism" out and replace it with asymmetrical warfare. The IRI targeting a U.S. military installation (e.g. U.S. Marine Barracks in California) is targeting non-combatants. In your initial statement you clearly and explicitly stated that you advocate FULL FORCE against all those who attack Iran. My question was, and remains:
Will YOU, Mammad, engage in what you explicitly advocate, the use of violence against American military personnel inside the U.S. if the U.S. attacked Iran? Or have you changed (and become pacifist, which means against ANY use of violence) and retract your earlier statement advocating violence against Americans by Iranians????????
Please do not change the subject. The question is very simple. You advocated VIOLENCE against Americans. To help, let me break down the question into 3 separate questions:
1. If the U.S. attacked Iran, is it legitimate in YOUR view that the IRI attacks the U.S. inside the U.S.?
2. Is attacking American military personnel in a military installation a terrorist activity or just an asymmetrical warfare method?
3. The question is this: Will YOU, yourself, also do what you advocate: FULL FORCE against those who attack Iran, that is American military personnel stationed in an American military base inside the U.S.? In other words, due to your age, you could not carry out the asymmetrical mission, but will YOU help the IRGC-QF or other IRI agents in carrying out a violent mission against American MILITARY target inside the U.S.?
I look forward to your honest answers.
MKby Mammad on Mon Nov 07, 2011 05:13 PM PST
You are fishing, but you cannot find anything, regardless of how hard you try! You have been doing this for quite sometime.
I am a pacifist. I am antiwar. I have seen, felt, and suffered enough bloodshed in my life and in those of those who are or were dear to me.
But, any attack on Iran under the current conditions is totally unjustified, for the reasons that I enumerated in my previous comments. Because such attacks are unjustified, Iran, regardless of who rules it, is entitled to a legitimate defense. That is what I support. Now, if Saudi Arabia, for example, allows its airspace and military bases to be used in the attack, as has been reported repeatedly, it is also a legitimate target. Similarly, if Iran attacks the U.S., Saudi Arabia, or Israel unprovoked, they are also entitled to counter-attacks, regardless of how much I hate to see such attacks.
I am against terrorism. Terrorism, by definition, is against civilians and innocent people to advance a political cuase and to terrify people, be it Israelis, Americans, Saudis, or Iranian people killed by MKO that you support. It is not part of asymmetrical warfare, as you claim. The word is self-clear: it is a warfare, meaning between armed forces. Asymmetric warfare means not a head-to-head war between regular armed forces and not a conventional war, but hit and run.
Therefore, if an agent of Iran tries to carry out terrorist operations here in the U.S., even if Iran is being attacked by the U.S. at the same time, I will immediately inform whoever is responsible, FBI, etc. I believe in legitimate defense; terrorism, by its very definition, is illegitimate. Precisely for the same reason, I reject Palestinians' terrorism inside Israel, even though I totally reject the apartheid system that Israel has set up for them in the West Bank.
Now, try to fish again, ask the same nonsensical question, but from another angle!
VPK Jaan, You said it very succinctly and eloquently.by Oon Yaroo on Mon Nov 07, 2011 04:50 PM PST
When you squeeze this article top to bottom, you get the following, Trita Parsi and NIAC are here to support IRR against Israel and NOT Iranian Americans or Iranians for that matter!
And one more thing, contrary to all the naneh man garibam bazzi of some here, IRR needs to be hammered by all means available including military strikes!
Regarding NIACby Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Mon Nov 07, 2011 04:20 PM PST
I wish they would keep their nose out of the Israel IRI fight. About a year ago I started observing NIAC. My hope was that they really did good. In many cases they did. But on the whole they are becoming a net negative force.
By getting involved in the IRI and Israel fight they hurt Iranian Americans. They are supposed to be a lobby to represent our interests in America. To further Iranian American involvement in politics and so on. Not to pick a fight with Israel.
Therefore is they keep on this path they will lose support. People on the fence such as me will abandon them. I am not a Muslim; feel no kinship with Palestinians and do not hate Israel. I do not want to be involved in this fight.
The conflict betweenby vildemose on Mon Nov 07, 2011 04:12 PM PST
The conflict between IR and Israel has nothing to do with Iranians or Iranian Americans but we will all be caught in the cross fire. Mr. Parsi makes our situation much worse by taking sides (especially IR's side) as our representative.
Dear Mehraban: This is such an insightful observation. I had not thought of the actual damage and diservice this self-appointed "representative" could be causing both Iranians inside and outside by his reckless and self-serving mission in the long run.
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - Louis D. Brandeis
Dear Abarmardby Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Mon Nov 07, 2011 02:25 PM PST
National wealth of Iran is our people and minds. The best are being driven out by IRI. Or being hanged to death or rotting in prison. Therefore I honestly do not see much wealth to destroy.
Regarding security Iranian security was gone the day American hostages got taken.
Again I reiterate my opposition to war against Iran. But just wanted to make it clear we are *** war nor not. Thanks to great revolution of 1979 and the Imam.
I am with Mehrban on thisby divaneh on Mon Nov 07, 2011 02:20 PM PST
Being against war has nothing to do with NIAC. I increasingly find NIAC an apologist for the Islamic regime who has not had a single action that could have harmed the regime. Unfortunately it is the dictatorial regime who has chosen the war and leads Iran on the path of destruction. No commenter here would have a slightest effect on what is happening and to give us a lesson about the harms that war will do to Iran is not going to achieve anything. In a dictatorship people are only observers until they topple the dictator. I am also against war and think it puts us another 50 years back and may tear Iran up, but the mad mullahs are in charge and some of those who lecture us against the war are those who support the mad dictators who are asking for this unequal war.
...by Hooshang Tarreh-Gol on Mon Nov 07, 2011 02:16 PM PST
Abarmard jaan, you're the one that started this, not me. Are you still on scotch?
Join NIAC, and become apologetic on Human Rights in Iran.
Join NIAC, and become a facilitator between IR and Western Oil companies and their reps in US Congress. Who knows, arrange big oil deals, get a little change yourself.
Join NIAC, and you'll never need to mention or help Iranian Refugees, anywhere in the world, even if they're even more homeless due to Earhtquake, at the moment. Ehem!
Join NIAC, and....