Does a Romney Administration Mean War with Iran?


Does a Romney Administration Mean War with Iran?
by Mohammad Alireza

This article is specifically written for Iranian-Americans that consistently vote Republican.

To generalize, but safe to say, most of this group of Iranians are diehard Royalists, rich, and generally politically retarded. Please excuse the use of the word "retarded" but anybody that listens to Rush Limbaugh can't be described in any other way. One of my best friends listens to Rush – and falls into the above category -- and I hate to say this, but he is without a doubt, politically retarded; yes, we make allowances for him.

But back to Romney and War with Iran, which is really what this article is about.

First of all Romney is just a front as was Bush. What is alarming is that the same crowd with the same mindset stands behind Romney as stood behind Bush when it comes to foreign policy.

Who are these people? Essentially they are neoconservatives who prescribe to the marching orders set out by the Project for the New American Century think tank, or to be blunt in the interest of clarity, they are greedy bloodthirsty warmongering imperialists. You can find more on PNAC at the two links below:



Below are links and excerpts from recent writings by Prof. Juan Cole, Prof. Muhammad Sahimi, and Justin Raimondo, who all raise this very issue; Does a Romney Administration mean war with Iran?

Now if the answer is yes, then it does not matter if you are a Republican, a Royalists, or listen to Rush Limbaugh, but you must NOT vote for Romney in November. I am not saying vote for Obama, because he has been an utter disaster on so many fronts, but whatever you do, don't vote for Romney, because as things are shaping up, a vote for Romeny means a vote for war with Iran.

"Mitt Romneys Coming War on Iran"
by Prof. Juan Cole.


"The American Republican Party Convention in Tampa ironically coincides with the Non-Aligned Movement meeting in Tehran, Iran. Were nominee Mitt Romney to win, he has signaled a willingness to take military action against Iran's civilian nuclear enrichment facilities, which the Iranians say are for the production of electricity via nuclear reactors, but which Romney claims are intended to produce a nuclear warhead. Romney is also open to sending US troops into Iran-backed Syria. The two conventions, one of white American millionaires and their hangers-on, and the other of global South countries unwilling to subordinate themselves to the American corporate establishment, are harbingers of a new global conflict that could have a dire impact on oil prices and the American and world economy."

"Romney's Foreign Policy Team and Iran"
by Prof. Muhammad Sahimi


"Last October, the Romney campaign officially announced its team of 24 "special advisers" on foreign policy and national security, two thirds of whom served under President George W. Bush, who led one of the most hawkish administrations in memory. In 1998, three of those advisers (Paula Dobriansky, Robert Kagan, and Vin Weber) signed the infamous letter sent by the neoconservative Project for the New American Century that urged President Bill Clinton to make toppling the regime of Saddam Hussein official U.S. policy, a wish eventually fulfilled with the invasion of Iraq in 2003. A total of 40 foreign policy advisers to Romney have now been identified -- including unofficial ones such as former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, and James Baker -- over 70 percent of whom served under Bush. These simple statistics alone provide important clues to what a Romney administration's foreign policy would look like."

"Foreign Policy Night in Tampa: A Horror Movie"
by Justin Raimondo.


"War with Iran is an enormously unpopular idea – unless you’re a crazed born-again Christian of the sort who believes America is Babylon, the end times are imminent, and loyalty to Israel is God’s will. These deluded doomsday dispensationalists are the bedrock of the GOP’s southern and Midwestern activist base, and revving these people up is what the festivities in Tampa are all about. The question is: how many normal Americans are repulsed by this kind of rhetoric?"

And in case you have been watching the Republican Convention and need to rinse out that flag waving propaganda out of your brain cells and want to know just how huge a sleazy bastard Romney is I suggest reading "Greed and Debt", a brilliant article by Matt Taibbi, which I've provided the link for plus an excerpt.

"Greed and Debt: The True Story of Mitt Romney and Bain Capital"
by Matt Taibbi.


"By making debt the centerpiece of his campaign, Romney was making a calculated bluff of historic dimensions – placing a massive all-in bet on the rank incompetence of the American press corps. The result has been a brilliant comedy: A man makes a $250 million fortune loading up companies with debt and then extracting million-dollar fees from those same companies, in exchange for the generous service of telling them who needs to be fired in order to finance the debt payments he saddled them with in the first place. That same man then runs for president riding an image of children roasting on flames of debt, choosing as his running mate perhaps the only politician in America more pompous and self-righteous on the subject of the evils of borrowed money than the candidate himself. If Romney pulls off this whopper, you'll have to tip your hat to him: No one in history has ever successfully run for president riding this big of a lie. It's almost enough to make you think he really is qualified for the White House."

"The unlikeliness of Romney's gambit isn't simply a reflection of his own artlessly unapologetic mindset – it stands as an emblem for the resiliency of the entire sociopathic Wall Street set he represents. Four years ago, the Mitt Romneys of the world nearly destroyed the global economy with their greed, shortsightedness and – most notably – wildly irresponsible use of debt in pursuit of personal profit. The sight was so disgusting that people everywhere were ready to drop an H-bomb on Lower Manhattan and bayonet the survivors. But today that same insane greed ethos, that same belief in the lunatic pursuit of instant borrowed millions – it's dusted itself off, it's had a shave and a shoeshine, and it's back out there running for president."


Recently by Mohammad AlirezaCommentsDate
"We are children!"
Nov 12, 2012
Did You Know You Are Not Anonymous on
Nov 04, 2012
Either you want war, or you want peace
Oct 26, 2012
more from Mohammad Alireza

English lesson

by alimostofi on

Mohammad Alireza

I will ignore your comments about me.

I will however help you understand what the phrase "thinking outside of the box" means if you like.

FB: astrologer.alimostofi

Mohammad Alireza

To alimostofi:

by Mohammad Alireza on

Mr. Mostofi you will have to forgive me but I find it very hard if not impossible to discuss issues that pertain to reality with an astrologer.

Since being back in Iran for the past 11 years I keep meeting intelligent and educated Iranians that are totally out of touch with reality in the form of believing in silly superstitions like Mahdi and other nonsense. Astrology falls under nonsense.

I have no idea what box you are referring to. Sorry, I'll pass.

If you want to know what my thoughts are on Iran, etc. plenty of past articles and blog posts can be referred to.


Yes or No?

by alimostofi on

Mohammad Alireza: thank you for the good read.

What you are saying is old hat I am afraid. In fact all the comments are also old hat. We all have written volumes on all the scenarios.

The only real truth is that the Ayatollah are part of US's internal politics and vice-versa. Keep it simple.

Now think outside this box. You have very eloquently described the box we all know very well.

Please think how we could grasp our own destiny without any regard for US or Ayatollah politics.

So my question to you is a simple one. Do you believe Iran has a solution out of this box? A simple yes or no would suffice.

Thank you.

FB: astrologer.alimostofi

Soosan Khanoom

Frashogar you have brought up good points

by Soosan Khanoom on

Also remember that since JFK there has not been a single U.S President who acted independently.    And we all know what actually happened to JFK for being an independent President.  


Soosan Khanoom


by Soosan Khanoom on



iraj khan

by Frashogar on

Romney would be no different than Obama re: Iran. Whatever the lobby does or says in the greater media this is for sound bite effect because such adventurist escapades as a potential Iran war are never determined by the office of the figurehead president. They are determined by the men in brass and the military industrial complex behind them. The men in brass and the industry behind them are on record saying they are against any war and presently they are going out of their way to ensure Israel keeps in line and doesn't do anything unilaterally.

Romney is simply blowing a lot of hot electoral air. Once he is sworn into office the whole greater configuration of things will be radically different than the rhetoric of the campaign that got him (s)elected.

That said, I am looking at polls and am seeing no surge for Mr. Romney. We should wait and see after the end of this week what the job numbers does for Obama. But I am presently leaning on a possible Obama re-election in November. Neither the electorate nor the estates which (s)elect presidents seem to be warming too much over Romney.

iraj khan

President Obama

by iraj khan on

is not a 'War president' when it comes to the question of Iran. That's the reason why the Israel Lobby hates him so much.

But Romney is giving all the signals that he would bomb Iran if he's elected.

I'm just saying,


Soosan Khanoom

Obama is no less than Romney.

by Soosan Khanoom on

for now he is playing with the anti war people to get him some votes.   Obama illegally attacked Libya and he will do exactly the  same with Syria and Iran as soon as he gets the opportunity.  So, if he hasn't  done it yet it is because that he couldn't.    For now they have Romny to talk ' shit 'while the deceitful Obama can actually get the chance to act 'Shit' ...

 'Yes, we can ' or better say ' Yes we will as soon as we can ' 

Yes, the same old 'shit' 




iraj khan

"Romney wants war with Iran and Syria"

by iraj khan on

So says vice President Biden:

(CNN) - Vice President Joe Biden claimed Sunday that Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential nominee, might engage in war with Syria and Iran if elected president in November.

"He (Romney) said it was a mistake to end the war in Iraq and bring all of our warriors home," Biden said at a campaign stop in Pennsylvania.

"He (Romney) said it was a mistake to set an end date for our warriors in Afghanistan and bring them home. He (Romney) implies by the speech that he's ready to go to war in Syria and Iran."



Mohammad Alireza

by Frashogar on

The Pilger documentary is simply awesome. I regularly post that around here and there. Thanks for posting it again here.

Dr. Mohandes

Jusr brilliant!

by Dr. Mohandes on

 My interest is in preventing war so that the Iranian people have the opportunity to establish democracy and the rule of law, which by the way is the last thing the American Empire wants. You doubt this? 


Let's see if the leaders of the "NEZAM" will be able to come to terms with your suggestion and strike a deal with you. I have a feeling that more than likey they will say : you will have you democracy and democratic principle implemented ONLY

 Over our dead bodies Boys:))

 To happy and sweet dreams.

Mohammad Alireza

To amirkabear4u:

by Mohammad Alireza on

If you had been paying attention you would have noticed that I indicated that Romney is a front just like Bush and clearly indicated that it is the neocon warmongers amongst his foreign policy crowd that are after war with Iran.

On top of that the cartoon points to the real force behind wanting a war with Iran.

Romney will be a puppet just like Bush.


Here we go again

by amirkabear4u on

We had this before and you are still making the same mistake.

Don't you know yet one man can not decide about war all by himslef in US. However still provided he is elected.



Mohammad Alireza

To Bijan A M:

by Mohammad Alireza on

Reading between the lines my guess is that you are rationalizing your vote for Romney, which puts you in the category starting with the letter "R".

As far as your accusation that I support the IRI that is just your mistaken presumption. My interest is in preventing war so that the Iranian people have the opportunity to establish democracy and the rule of law, which by the way is the last thing the American Empire wants. You doubt this? Then I suggest you view John Pilger's "The War on Democracy", which is streamed for free at this link:


But I do agree with you that the IRI's days are numbered.


IR's strategam in acquiring nuclear technology, to overcome its

by Zendanian on

persistent internal crisis. Line up all other contenders of Iranian 'nationalism' behind itself, and project and  pose as a regional power to be dealt with.

And now we have all cluless Hezbo'llah and Zelo'llah cheering for this "national pride."

Meanwhile half the country of 75 millions lives in absolute or "relative" poverty. Wonder if there's a recipe for atomic Eshkeneh?

To live a respectful , comfortable life, that is our natural rights.

And it shall be achieved only by overthrowing IR.

iraj khan

"What we need to do is to try to understand Iranians"

by iraj khan on


Hear it from the former Mossad chief, Mr Efraim Halevy: 

“What we need to do is to try and understand the Iranians,” the former Mossad head says. “The basic feeling of that ancient nation is one of humiliation.

Both religious Iranians and secular Iranians feel that for 200 years the Western powers used them as their playthings. They do not forget for a moment that the British and the Americans intervened in their internal affairs and toppled the regime of Mohammad Mosaddeq in 1953.

From their perspective, the reason why, to this day, there is no modern rail network and no modern oil refineries in Iran is that the West prevented that. Thus, the deep motive behind the Iranian nuclear project − which was launched by the Shah − is not the confrontation with Israel, but the desire to restore to Iran the greatness of which it was long deprived."


Mohamad alireza: Dont panic!

by Roozbeh_Gilani on

All this fear of  "attack", could gve you stomach cancer! 

You are being misinformed. US will never attack Islamist regime. They want only to punish their faithful dogs, the islamist regime, for poor behaviour!

The rest, overthrowing the corrupt, thieving, murdering Islamist regime, putting on trial the islamist regime leadership and their cronies who miss that last money laden planes tp Moscow, Toronto and London,  and speedy execution of the verdicts , "irooni style", is our "undeniable right" and dont you forget it... 

"Personal business must yield to collective interest."


Republicans want to Balkanize Iran ...

by ayatoilet1 on

Two Republican Congressmen,  Rep Dana Rohrabacher (R-California) and Rep Lousie Gohmert (R-Texas) are on record for wanting BOTH Iran and Pakistan invaded to create the new "nation" of Baluchestan; and just last week Rep Rohrabacher wrote to Hillary Clinton promoting the concept of a "united" Azerbaijan.

Having said that, I do think that Balkanizing Iran is the real policy and that in fact the strategy has been laid out behind the scenes within the non-partizan intelligence comunites of the West (i.e. US and Allies) and therefore is NOT dependent on who is actually voted in power. Its a long-range plan and several key things need to happen before Iran is broken up.

Among these things is resolution of the Syria situation (i.e. balkanization of Syria); and the further training and development of sepratist groups such as the Kurds in Iraq, Baluchis in Afghanistan, Turkmen in Turkmenistan, Ahwazis in Saudi Arabia, Azeris in Azerbaijan. The idea is to break Iran up by proxy - NOT - by overt open war.  Like in Syria this will be done with arms and tactical support from the West and Israel. There is currently new base construction in Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan in support of this plan.

Be careful of Romney or the Republicans - they will promise a fight against the regime, milk Iranians for money. But the real plan is the break up of Iran. They did that before when Reagan was secretly dealing with the Mullahs while the Republicans were milking Iranians for money. Right now they are saying Obama betrayed Iranians in 2009, but we all know full well the Republicans would have done the same.

If the break up of Iran is 'precipitated' by Iranian sepratists, Russia will have a harder time interfering or using the fight as a premise to invade Georgia or Azerbaijan.  Its all very clever and well laid out.

The best thing that can happen is if the IRI, somehow establish a real democratic government in Iran and develops a way to embrace or integrate the separatists into government - so they feel like they have ownership and a voice in the government. Also, its important for Iran to explain to neighbors like Pakistan, turkey or Iraq that ultimately this will also result in a carve up of their countries too. Kurds or Baluchis will NOT stop at the borders of Iran in claiming their new nations.

My fear is that the IRI has a bunch of traitors in high places, who have already given up 40% of the Caspian Sea to the West, and will be essentially act with impotence while Iran is broken up.

U.S. is broke and will NOT invade Iran directly. BUT for sure there is a plan for more arms sales and more arms support for the separatists. Republicans definitely want that.


God's speed to Mr. Mitt Romney's capturing the White House!


With Mr. Romney's vision in the new world order and his determination in implementing his policies of eliminating the thugs and dictatorship regimes in the middle east coupled with the large appetite of Americans for bringing to justice the perpetrators of 911, US and Israel will strike IRR at the right time when mullahs are least expecting it (e.g., 21st of Ramadan or on Ashura!) 

You can bet your bottom dollar this will happen!

Shlomo ex director of SAVAK.

Bijan A M

I don,t know about your

by Bijan A M on

I don,t know about your friend who you call retarded but I sincerely think that you are politically retarded to ignore the facts on the ground. You are shitting in your pants for the possibility that if Romney is elected. The war with Iran is independent of this election (that in itself should tell you how retarded you are). You can defend some version of IRI all you want, but the history has shown they will not last. It all is a matter of time. 

I don't know if the war with Iran happens, all I know is that this regime is on the way out (with or without war). The conditions are primed for the overthrow.

So, please stop undermining what's going on and support the overthrow of the occupying regime of IRI. 


Well, Romney first will need to be selected…

by Bavafa on

I mean elected, for him to want to go to war with Iran.  He has been making lots of promises and has certainly been burying his nose deep into the Right/Zionist a$$ enough.  While there is little doubt that those said group are itching to go to war with Iran but nothing is written and things could change before he has got the thrown.

  As the suggestion for Iran to let itself to be occupied yet by another blood sucking empire wannabe of China or Russia, wouldn’t that be just as retarded idea as Rush Limbaugh and the current Republican ideology? If the goal is to be free and politically independent, then Iranian people need to take charge of their own life and destiny.  There are definitely those before Iran who proved successfully to stand up the powers of the West or East with much less than Iran has.  We just need to BELIEVE in ourselves and be willing to have the backbone.


'Hambastegi' is the main key to victory 



Arrogant ignorant pro-war and sanction monarchists

by Zendanian on

Seem to need some serious psychiatry.

It even ryhmes!

Hoping the same "Western powers" that created Islamic Republic of Iraq and Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to overthrow Islamic Republic of Iran.

Q) What in the world would be more cluless than that?

A) Repeating it twice a day, like a bad case of diarrhea.

First Amendment


by First Amendment on



Leasing out the islands sounds fine to me...........and it is not an alien subject to Iran's political and diplomatic's a very thorny issue......I've heard of some talks around this matter within SL circles......Public backlash based on the collective memory of the past regime is something to consider......


Clueless lefties 4

by Fred on


The lefties can say whatever they wish about me, however,  that will not change their cluelessness about “disputed” Iranian territories or wishing military occupation of Iran to save the Islamist Rapists.

Mohammad Alireza

Disputed brain cells.

by Mohammad Alireza on

Leasing rights to base a naval base is not occupation and you can check your trukin manual if you dispute that.


Clueless lefties 3

by Fred on


The lefties can say whatever they wish about me, however,  that will not change their cluelessness about “disputed” Iranian territories or wishing military occupation of Iran to save the Islamist Rapists.

Mohammad Alireza

Trukin Fred!

by Mohammad Alireza on

Anybody who advocates a military attack on Iran and demands "crippling" sanctions on Iran is the clueless one.

And please don't dispute the above because we have been around this block before and you confirmed your betrayal to the Iranian people. So once again, please give us a break from your insipidness.


Clueless lefties 2

by Fred on

I might be all that the lefties say that I am, that will not
change their cluelessness about “disputed” Iranian territories or wishing military occupation of Iran to save the Islamist Rapists.

Look for trukin


Mohammad Alireza

The disputed Fred

by Mohammad Alireza on

That's spelt "Trucking" Fred and I think that is really your level of education; the level of a truck driver. Then again I don't think you are even employed given the hours you spend on this site bombarding us with your insipidness.

Didn't "Keep on Trucking" come from the sixties? From fifties to are slowly catching up with the times.


Clueless lefties

by Fred on

Two points,

Lets say some yahoo makes a claim on Tabriz,
are the lefties going to refer to Tabriz as the “disputed” city?

Lefties are all about  supporting that which benefits
the Islamist Rapists and is anti-American; their forefathers the treacherousToudeies were the same.

Keep on truking!