my note on the current global affairs

Oct 18, 2010
6,271
848
#81
it is becoming abundantly clear that the a new strategic decision has been made for the united state in dealing with iran.
mr. kerry just bitch slapped the likes of mr, adelson and the rest of aipac goons with his comments in regard to their hate
campaign against iran and the unites states dealing with iran.

Secretary of State John Kerry responded to Israel’s demand for tighter sanctions against Iran with a few blunt sentences that shaped to a simple message: No.
 
Oct 18, 2010
6,271
848
#82
the syrian and korean threads have been polluted with too much noise.
as promised i give you my understanding of what is going on in this brief note.

can obama pull a nixon?

we have to look at the world as a whole when analyzing the events in the middle east.
the united states has been the dominant force in that region ever since the uk withdrew their forces
in the early 70s.after vitenam war ended the u.s. pivoted to the persian gulf.the opening of china to
the world by nixon gave the u.s. the freedom to plan their next doctrine which was put into writing by
president carter and his national security team.ever since the u.s. has been operating based on that doctrine
which made the persian gulf and the security of oil supplies it's #1 priority in foreign policy.that doctrine
is coming to an end now.the u.s. is not as dependent on the oil supplies from the persian gulf and in fact
the estimates are that they are going to be totally independent of that oil supply in the near future.hence
the recent pivot/rebalancing towards asia that president obama and his national security team have initiated and which
will be the basis of the next security doctrine for the u.s.

with this new doctrine the u.s. has to wrap up their involvement in the middle east and in particular the persian gulf
and pass the baton to a partner that can provide the security for the region.this is precisely the reason why the arab
spring was put into motion with the support of the u.s. and her allies.also this is why the uk and france were so eager
join in and fill the vacuum that is going to be left by the u.s.absence.the u.s. doctrine is not yet finalized.the isreali firsters
and their wings of both the republican and democratic party in particular are trying to shape the events from their own prespective and
dictate their plans for the region to obama and his team.note the reluctance of obama getting involved in libya and syria and the eagerness
of u.k. and france to get involved in both countries.also note the alliance between turkey and the reactionary forces in the arab world to
confront iran and her allies in the region.

it seems to me that obama and his team have come to the conclusion that iran is the only sane and civilized nation,
with enough power,wealth and manpower,that can be trusted in being the dominant force in the region.this has alarmed
the semites,both jews and arabs,in the region which are trying very hard to prevent the required rapprochement between
iran and the u.s. for this doctrinve to begin taking shape.turkey is also being left out of the u.s. plan and they are playing
a very confused game with close ties to the reactionary arabs and on the other hand having very troubled relations with the isrealis.
at the same time turkey also knows that iran is the only power they can trust in the region.so it is plausible that they will
pivot towards iran once iran and the u.s. come to an agreement.this is why the republican right wing and the democratic
agents of isrealis in the u.s. policy making apparatus are doing their best to prevent a deal between iran and the u.s.

what is certain is that the u.s. is wrapping up it's involvement in the persian gulf and will not allow under any
circumstances a new conflict with iran in the region.that is just not financially or militarily in their long term interest and
future pivot towards east asia to deal with a surging china. the $64 question is will iran cooperate in implementing
this new doctrine.at then end it is up to obama and his team need to sweeten the offer a lot for iran to lose their mistrust and become a
trusted partner for the u.s. for the next few decades.

in short, it is now up to obama to be a visionary and make his iran play as nixon did his china play.

now that the jeannie is out of the bottle everyone is jumping on the iran/usa bandwagon:

[h=1]Is Iran About to Become Our New Best Friend?[/h]
This fall, for the first time since the days of disco, the president of the United States and the leader of Iran spoke directly by phone. Iran’s newly elected president, Hassan Rouhani, is taking steps to end his country’s international isolation. But it’s hard to tell if Rouhani and his moderate allies are serious about effecting change—or if they’re merely making promises in order to get economic sanctions lifted. And, given how much power resides in the conservative establishment, Rouhani may not have any real chance of changing Iran. What might it mean for both countries–and for the dynamics of the Middle East—if the U.S. and Iran were, once again, to become real allies? How would a relationship reset affect oil prices, our relationship with Israel, and life for Iranian-Americans here? Occidental College political scientist Hussein Banai, co-author of Becoming Enemies: U.S.-Iran Relations and the Iran-Iraq War, 1979-1988, Asia Society vice president of global policy programs Suzanne DiMaggio, and Occidental College historian Thaddeus Russell visit Zócalo to discuss whether we may be entering a new era in the relationship between the U.S. and Iran, and how it could change both nations and the world.

http://www.zocalopublicsquare.org/event/?postId=51127
 

Flint

Legionnaire
Jan 28, 2006
7,016
0
United States
#83
Another self-serving post. We have been hearing the same thing since Bud McFarlan took a Bible and cake to Iran. I guess if you keep saying the same thing it will eventually come true. By the way couldn't you find a more obscure site than zocalopublicsquare.org?
 
Oct 18, 2010
6,271
848
#86
the hate campaign against iran and iranians started by the isreali pm right after iranian president's appearance at the un is now being
taken over by the jewish groups in america.this act of desperation will result in a harsh response not only from iran,which has already reacted,
but by the policy makers in the usa.the desperation by these groups is reaching an alarming level as it's evident in their clear threat to
the decision makers in the u.s. congress and other stakeholders.but this is a passing wind as the strategic decisions in the usa
are made at level well above the pay grade of these hate peddlers.

“There will be a political price to be paid by every leader in Congress that stood by, delayed, or dithered while Iran became a nuclear power,” CUFI Executive Director David Brog said, the Washington Free Beacon reported. “If that’s going to be stopped, they need to act now. Otherwise, pay the price.”


[h=1]Days After White House Meeting, AIPAC Says ‘No Pause’ in Iran Sanctions Efforts[/h]
http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/11/0...ac-says-no-pause-in-iran-sanctions-efforts-2/
 
Oct 18, 2010
6,271
848
#87
another brick in the wall is falling nicely in place.isreal is being forced to accept a 'nuke free zone'
in the middle east which will require them to get rid of their 200+ illegal nukes.they will be kiccking
and screaming about it but when the boss makes you an offer you can't refuse you listen:

Diplomatic sources confirmed Tuesday that Israel and Iran attended an international conference two weeks ago in Switzerland to discuss the possibility of banning nuclear weapons in the Middle East, according to Reuters.


http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-iran-attended-nuclear-conference-last-month-sources-confirm/

and in case the extremists in the apartheid regime missed the starting gun,here is one of their own
to tell them the bitter truth:

[video=youtube_share;VPsm8L6e8AY]http://youtu.be/VPsm8L6e8AY[/video]
 

Chinaski

Elite Member
Jun 14, 2005
12,269
352
#88
Bebin joojeh, i tell you something, ino vaase hamishe aavizoone gooshet kon: Israel will never ever under any circumstances give up on their nuclear arsenal. NEVER. They basically dont even have to follow UN reoslutions as they are the ones who violated the most UN resolutions up until today. And: As long as you joojeh basijis support that faschist mullah terrorist regime in iran who fuck up own people just in order to survive and stay even a day longer, then you need to wash your mouth before you call other governments "apartheid". Khatme payaam.
 
Oct 18, 2010
6,271
848
#89
now that the jeannie is out of the bottle everyone is jumping on the iran/usa bandwagon:

Is Iran About to Become Our New Best Friend?


This fall, for the first time since the days of disco, the president of the United States and the leader of Iran spoke directly by phone. Iran’s newly elected president, Hassan Rouhani, is taking steps to end his country’s international isolation. But it’s hard to tell if Rouhani and his moderate allies are serious about effecting change—or if they’re merely making promises in order to get economic sanctions lifted. And, given how much power resides in the conservative establishment, Rouhani may not have any real chance of changing Iran. What might it mean for both countries–and for the dynamics of the Middle East—if the U.S. and Iran were, once again, to become real allies? How would a relationship reset affect oil prices, our relationship with Israel, and life for Iranian-Americans here? Occidental College political scientist Hussein Banai, co-author of Becoming Enemies: U.S.-Iran Relations and the Iran-Iraq War, 1979-1988, Asia Society vice president of global policy programs Suzanne DiMaggio, and Occidental College historian Thaddeus Russell visit Zócalo to discuss whether we may be entering a new era in the relationship between the U.S. and Iran, and how it could change both nations and the world.

http://www.zocalopublicsquare.org/event/?postId=51127

i was at this event last night.it was well attended with a mix of iranian and non-iranian crowd.the discussion itself was pretty informative
for the non-initiated and not too light.you can see the full video of the event along with a wrap up and some pictures here:

http://www.zocalopublicsquare.org/2013/11/06/iran-love-me-love-me-not/events/the-takeaway/
 
Oct 18, 2010
6,271
848
#90
the apartheid regime in saudi is desperate now and is bound to act irrationally.the combination
of them and their fellow apartheid regime in isreal is making the world nervous.these are neither
rational or logical regimes and bound to act suicidal
.but all things considered this is a great strategic
victory for the good guys in the region and very good news for the world at large.

Saudi spy chief says Riyadh to 'shift away from U.S.' over Syria, Iran


DOHA (Reuters) - Saudi Arabia's intelligence chief has said the kingdom will make a "major shift" in relations with the United States in protest at its perceived inaction over the Syria war and its overtures to Iran, a source close to Saudi policy said on Tuesday.
Prince Bandar bin Sultan told European diplomats that Washington had failed to act effectively on the Syria crisis and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, was growing closer to Tehran, and had failed to back Saudi support for Bahrain when it crushed an anti-government revolt in 2011, the source said.



http://news.yahoo.com/saudi-spy-chief-says-riyadh-shift-away-u-122105436.html
as predicted the apartheid regime goons are suicidal and should be put under a 24/7
suicide watch as they slowly but surely realize they are going to lose the strategic battle to iran.

A French member of parliament telephoned French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius in Geneva at the weekend to warn him that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would attack Iran’s nuclear facilities if the P5+1 nations did not stiffen their terms on a deal with Iran, Israel’s Channel 2 News reported Sunday.


http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-will-attack-if-you-sign-the-deal-french-mp-told-fabius/
 
Oct 18, 2010
6,271
848
#91
as predicted the apartheid regime goons are suicidal and should be put under a 24/7
suicide watch as they slowly but surely realize they are going to lose the strategic battle to iran.

A French member of parliament telephoned French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius in Geneva at the weekend to warn him that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would attack Iran’s nuclear facilities if the P5+1 nations did not stiffen their terms on a deal with Iran, Israel’s Channel 2 News reported Sunday.


http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-will-attack-if-you-sign-the-deal-french-mp-told-fabius/

of course it is understandable that the french are acting hostile towards iran.to understand their current
attitude towards iran we have to look at what iran has done in recent years.iran has essentially managed
to free both lebanon & syria from deep french domination.this has been very costly to france both in economic
and more importantly in political terms.they resent losing out to the 'inferior' iranians as they see it and it is
manifesting itself in their current illogical stands towards iran

pat buchanan has an excellent piece today about these issues which i will copy here entirely:

[h=1]A Deal With Iran -- or War With Iran?[/h]
By Pat Buchanan 9 hours ago






Which is exactly what Bibi wants.


For what terrifies Tel Aviv, and rattles Riyadh, is not a U.S. war with Iran, but the awful specter of American rapprochement with Iran, a detente.
Thus, when France's foreign minister torpedoed the deal John Kerry flew to Geneva to sign, France soared in neocon esteem. The "cheese-eating surrender monkeys " of 2003 who opposed the Iraq war suddenly became again the heroes of Verdun and the Marne.


"Vive La France" blared the Wall Street Journal editorial declaiming, "Francois Hollande's Socialist Government has saved the West from a deal that would all but guarantee that Iran becomes a nuclear power."


Did Hollande really save the West? Or did he just rack up points with the Saudi princes for when the next big arms contract comes up for bid?
What is going on is a gravely serious matter.


If the Netanyahu cabal succeeds in sabotaging U.S. negotiations with Iran, it is hard to see how we avoid another war that could set the Persian Gulf region ablaze and sink the global economy.


And just what is it that has Netanyahu apoplectic?


A six-month deal under which Iran would freeze all enrichment of uranium, in return for a modest lifting of sanctions, while the final agreement is negotiated. The final deal would put permanent limits and controls on Iran's nuclear program to ensure it is not used to build bombs
And there would be more and more intrusive inspections.


How would this imperil Israel?


Iran today has no atom bomb. Has never tested a bomb. Has never exploded a nuclear device. Possesses not a single known ounce of 90 percent enriched uranium, which is essential for a uranium bomb.


Nor does Iran have enough 20 percent uranium to make a bomb. And part of the stockpile it did have has been converted into fuel rods. There are inspectors in all of Iran's operating nuclear facilities.


The Ayatollah has declared a fatwa against nuclear weapons. The Hassan Rouhani regime says it has no nuclear weapons program.
And U.S. intelligence agrees with Iran.


All 16 U.S. intelligence agencies in 2007, and, again, two years ago, said, with high confidence, that Iran has made no decision to build a bomb and has no nuclear weapons program.


How would new restrictions and reductions on an Iranian nuclear program that has never produced an ounce of weapons-grade uranium, let alone a bomb, threaten Israel, with its hundreds of atom bombs?

"You can't trust the Iranians. They're lying about their nuclear program," says Lindsey Graham.


Is U.S. intelligence also lying?


Ten years ago, it turned out Saddam was telling the truth and it was Lindsey's friends doing the lying about Iraq's WMDs.
Looks like the same old crowd up to the same old tricks.


To abort Obama's Iran initiative, Bibi is moving on four tracks.


First, get Congress to accept Israel's nonnegotiable demand Iran must give up all enrichment, shut down all nuclear facilities and ship all enriched uranium abroad — before any sanctions are lifted.


This is an ultimatum masquerading as a negotiating position.


Acceptance would entail an Iranian surrender Rouhani could never take home. It is a deal killer. Everyone knows it, even the Republicans now embracing the Israeli position as their own.


Second, persuade Israel's collaborators in Congress to impose harsh new sanctions, rub Iran's nose in them, and scuttle the talks.


Third, arouse Jewish communities worldwide to pressure home governments to block any deal.


Sunday, Bibi told the General Assembly of Jewish Federations of North America that what Kerry was prepared to sign was a "bad and dangerous deal" that threatened Jewish survival, and, "on matters of Jewish survival, I will not be silenced."


Bibi intends to use the explosive issue of imperiled Jewish survival to break Obama and Kerry and force them to abandon their Iranian initiative.


Finally, the Israeli lobby is behind the push by Lindsay Graham and Rep. Trent Franks to have Congress preemptively surrender its war powers, by authorizing Obama to launch a war on Iran at a time of his own choosing, without any further consultation with Congress.


Remarkable. Self-proclaimed constitutional Republicans are about to vote Barack Obama a blank check for war.


What the GOP fears is another episode like the one last summer where America rose as one and told Congress not to authorize any war on Syria. A panicked Congress capitulated, and there was no war.


Today, though Obama and Kerry insist "all options are on the table," Obama has no more authority to attack Iran today than he did Syria last summer. Hill Republicans seek to remedy that by a preemptive congressional surrender of their war power.


One wonders if Netanyahu and his amen corner in Congress have considered the backlash worldwide should they succeed in scuttling Geneva and putting this nation on the fast track to another Mideast war Israel and Saudi may want but America does not.


Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of "Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?" To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators webpage at www.creators.com.


COPYRIGHT 2013 CREATORS.COM
 
Oct 18, 2010
6,271
848
#92
this is what drives the criminals running the apartheid regimes in isreal and saudi so mad and irrational.
they can not possibey match what iran has to offer once there is a deal.it's always the economy stupid!

Cars are a good example, which is why General Motors (GM) is planning to work with Iranian carmaker Khodro, according to French daily Le Figaro. Vatanka thinks that "big companies from Germany, France, the UK and Italy will always have a footing in Iran."

"But I think the priority right now …is to bring as much American interest as possible back into Iran. Business that was there on a large scale before the 1979 revolution. And the hope is that these American businesses that are going to make money in Iran can then in Washington become a counterbalance to those lobby-groups in Washington that are very anti-Iran," Vatanka said.

And it is not just carmakers bracing for the race to get into Iran. With a population of nearly 80 million, Iran boasts the biggest market for consumer goods in the Middle East.
European and US companies are jockeying for position already, ready to pounce once the sanctions are lifted. Vatanka thinks European firms may end up the loser here, as they have caused huge disappointment in Iran.
"They feel that the Europeans have by and large gone under the leadership of the United States," he claimed.
"So the question in Tehran is, why believe that the Europeans can deliver for us when, really, the only power that can deliver for us politically and on the nuclear issue and other matters is the United States."

http://www.dw.de/us-firms-poised-to-seize-opportunities-in-iran/a-17218401
 
Oct 18, 2010
6,271
848
#93
at his news conference today obama pretty much urinated on bibi and rest of the
extremist,both foreign and domestic,who are opposed to an iran/usa deal:

"No matter how good our military is, military options are always messy,” Obama said. “Any armed conflict has cost to it.”

the writing is on the wall and if the residents or the rulers of the apartheid regime in isreal
are not happy with the us of a they can always take on a new 'sugar daddy'.may i suggest to
them their new best pal and fellow supporters of the jihadist terrorists with a deeper pocket,namely the
fat shiekhs in saudi.


20131116_USD000_0.jpg
 
Oct 18, 2010
6,271
848
#94
pepe escobar wrote an interesting piece over the weekend that is essentially expanding
on the themes that we have been discussing here.he explains why the u.s. needs a deal
with iran at this time for strategic reasons and even goes so far as predicting a 'pivot to persia'.

[h=1]Pivotal moment: Why US wants deal with Iran[/h]
http://rt.com/op-edge/us-iran-nuclear-program-764/
 
Oct 18, 2010
6,271
848
#95
the apartheid regimes in isreal and saudi are getting increasingly desperate and
suicidal as iran and u.s. close in on a deal.yesterday's bombing attempt of the
iranian embassy in beirut was a clear sign of desperation on their behalf.
the poll results out today clearly shows the majority of american people are
on the same side on this issue as the majority of iranian people.

[h=3]Q: Thinking now about the situation with Iran, would you support or oppose an agreement in which the United States and other countries would lift some of their economic sanctions against Iran, in exchange for Iran restricting its nuclear program in a way that makes it harder for it to produce nuclear weapons?[/h]
Support 64%


Oppose 30%



No opinion 6%



http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/.../19/National-Politics/Polling/release_275.xml
 
Oct 18, 2010
6,271
848
#96
looks like the criminal leaders of the apartheid regime in isreal has been singing the same
tune at least since 1984:

Iran in final stages of production of nuclear bomb: Maariv headline April 25, 1984

BZ9tulrCYAAjpre.jpg
 
Oct 18, 2010
6,271
848
#97
finally nyt seems to also see the emergence of the new strategic paradigm in the
middle east as was predicted in this thread half a year ago.

LONDON — THE recent nuclear deal with Iran has caused a predictable furor among Middle East hawks. But it offers an opportunity for a much bigger breakthrough: rapprochement and, eventually, even strategic cooperation with Iran.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/09/opinion/iran-from-enemy-to-ally.html?hp&rref=opinion
 
Oct 18, 2010
6,271
848
#98
i believe the author of this article is of iranian origin.he seems to come the same
conclusion that has been advocated in this note.

The ultimate purpose and objective lies not in the nuclear dossier but in defining Iran's future geo-strategic role in the Gulf, Middle East and South East Asia. It is about Iran's active participation in healing long-standing open wounds, including the cancer of the Israeli-Palestinian impasse. Only a Pax Americana-Irania can lead to a stabilization of Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and prevent Syria from turning into a failed state with destabilizing spillovers into neighboring countries, notably weak Lebanon and Jordan.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-nasser-h-saidi/us-detente-with-iran-game-changer_b_4476864.html
 
Oct 18, 2010
6,271
848
in the link below you will find a list published by aipac which reveals the name of the senators
who support(47) and those who have declined to support(53),so far at least,the anti-obama,
anti-iranian and pro-war resolution being peddled by their main agents in the u.s senate.
aipac is targeting those who have not declared for this pro-war resolution for extreme pressure.
i urge those of you who live in their districts to write or call them and asked them not to support
a new war americans don't want.american people defeated aipac on syria and rejected their war and
will do it again top stop aipac from committing the usa into a new war on behalf of the apartheid regime
in isreal.

What is remarkable about this list, however, is that very few of the 47 co-sponsors have chosen to publicize their support for the bill to their constituents through local media or other means. A handful of the original co-sponsors put out press releases, as did Rob Portman, a late joiner. Lamar Alexander, another late-comer, courageously “tweeted” his backing for the bill. “If this were a bill senators were excited about; that is, something they thought they’d earn a lot of credit for — and not draw a lot of heat — from their voters, you’d think all of the co-sponsors would be proudly touting their support,” one veteran Hill observer told me. “Clearly, even for the Republican [co-sponsors], that doesn’t seem to be the case with this bill.”

http://www.lobelog.com/47-senators-take-aipacs-word-over-u-s-intel-community/