Top   /  New
Cyrus___ Cyrus___ (@Cyrus___) on Pinned comment
"Iran has been under siege by the US since the American/British installed shah was overthrown by a popular revolution in 1979."

I love how the media, particularly on the left, contrasts the Shah against the ayatollahs. The Shah is always a brutal, murderous puppet dictator, while his replacements were humble, benevolent folk begged for by the people in a glorious revolution that took Iran to new heights and restored Islamic purity to the land. OK, maybe I'm exaggerating here but you get the point. There is a deliberate and very misleading contrast. The reason for this is simple: the Western leftists and the mullahs share an anti-imperialist revolutionary ideology' Western leftists therefore see the mullahs as allies in the struggle against imperialism. This alignment blinds them to anything else, because it is more important in the struggle for power than any of the other principles for which they supposedly stand. Disgusting.

"Invading Iran would not be easy. Iran is vulnerable to raids and small incursions but subjugating this large, mountainous nation of 80 million would be very difficult."

Destroying Iranian infrastructure by a massive bombing campaign over several weeks would however be achievable. In case you haven't noticed, the US is never interested in completely subjugating the populations of the countries it destroys. Its main target is the infrastructure of the state, military and civilian. With the state in ruins, the people are allowed to fight amongst themselves. They do not want stability. So yes, Iran is a big job but it is doable. Iran has been invaded and completely overrun so many times before, why not now? As stated, the Iranian military is hopelessly outclassed by Western forces.

"As we have just seen with North Korea, Iran’s best survival strategy, short of security guarantees by Russia and China, would be to race to produce a small number of nuclear weapons to deter attacks by the US and Israel."

Do you really think that would work? I don't think it would.















See More
0 +
Cyrus___ Cyrus___ (@Cyrus___) on Pinned comment
"In retrospect, the era of American hegemony — the moment of the “sole superpower,” when the United States was the “essential” country — was remarkably brief. It began in 1991, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, probably peaked just before 9/11, and for the past decade — under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama — it has been drawing slowly and unevenly to an end."

It's true that America hasn't been leading the world for very long, but it is longer than this journalists claims in this article. Supporters of the Soviet bloc would probably back the Appelbaum's position over mine, but my opinion of the date when America became the essential nation is 1944, with the Bretton Woods agreement, followed by Britain's withdrawal from global and imperial leadership owing to the economic woes of WWII. Bretton Woods was replaced by the petrodollar in the early 70s, which kept the US in a commanding position as owner of the world reserve currency, not to mention America's massive military lead over any pretenders to the throne of world domination. The Soviet ruble was never a serious rival to the US dollar, and the USSR was always playing catch-up technologically - with some notable exceptions. That's why I say the US didn't have to wait for the USSR to fall in order to become the "essential" nation.

Not only has America not been in charge for long, the Americans didn't really bring anything new to the table. This is basically the British Empire 2.0, which makes sense given that America was a product of the British Empire, with Britain's consistently being the main external influence on American culture.



See More
0 +
iraj iraj (@iraj) on Pinned comment
'there gotta be some way out of here'
Russian and Israeli mob with the help of the ex-intelligent officers of the respective countries are running the United States affairs. George Washington is turning over in his grave.
See More
0 +
Cyrus___ Cyrus___ (@Cyrus___) on Pinned comment
It's all too easy to forget that Hillary Clinton was also a major war hawk, who made some pretty hawkish remarks about Iran. I'm sure the outcome would have been similar had she won office, although the journey to that outcome - that is, the theatrical display - almost certainly differed. But it's outcomes and results that matter. She was a major hawk who oversaw the destruction of multiple countries.
See More
0 +
Cyrus___ Cyrus___ (@Cyrus___) on Pinned comment
"For President Trump’s closest advisors, the true choice is diplomacy or war."

Yeah, but diplomacy doesn't have to be very active. It doesn't necessarily mean constant meetings trying to get another deal. Another long spell of isolation under sanctions is still better than war. Hopefully that's all that happens. Alas, it's not looking good.

"The claims of Bolton and his allies in and out of government that tough talk or support for poorly organized and widely unpopular opponents of the Iranian regime like the Mujahedeen Khalq (MEK) will be enough to drive the current government from power are a fantasy."

Well of course the MEK won't be toppling the current regime. That job would probably be left to the Anglo-American-Zionist military forces. If the other recent middle eastern destructions are any guide, the current strong regime will be replaced with a very weak one. That might be where the MEK's political wing comes in. Still, the MEK is, or at least was, part of the problem. I don't forgive them for helping to ruin Iran in the first place.

"By eliminating bomb-making materials and keeping Iran from developing new ones without being detected, the deal blocked any pathway to a nuclear weapon that Iran would otherwise have had."

But I thought Iran wasn't actually pursuing nukes.
See More
0 +
john John Skorick (@john) on Pinned comment
See More
0 +
john John Skorick (@john) on Pinned comment
See More
0 +
Cyrus___ Cyrus___ (@Cyrus___) replied to ashianeh (@ashianeh) on Pinned comment
The reality is that is how it has always worked with the leading world powers. They do what they want, boss other countries around. Anyone who resists is putting themselves in big danger. The Persian Empire also had its turn at this game. Now it's America's turn, and they have more power and more capabilities than anyone before them.
See More
0 +
ashianeh ashianeh (@ashianeh) replied to Cyrus___ (@Cyrus___) on Pinned comment
The rule of jungle... They did it, and are still doing it, to the Native Americans, to the African Americans and to countless countries around the world. I am stronger and have the right to do what I want to.
See More
0 +
Cyrus___ Cyrus___ (@Cyrus___) replied to ashianeh (@ashianeh) on Pinned comment
Yes, and it was very predictable. We were naive for thinking we would be left alone while everyone else who stood up to America was being crushed.
See More
1 +
ashianeh ashianeh (@ashianeh) replied to Cyrus___ (@Cyrus___) on Pinned comment
With today’s reckless decision the specter war is more real than ever. The question is only when. Washington warmongers are insatiable.
See More
0 +
Cyrus___ Cyrus___ (@Cyrus___) on Pinned comment
"More likely, his decision, announced on Tuesday, will allow Iran to resume a robust nuclear program,"

I don't think so. Anything Iran does with its nuclear programme will be subject to reprisals, something Trump has made pretty clear with words "if they continue their nuclear aspirations, they will have bigger problems than they have ever had before".

The comprehensive and lasting solution to which he alluded probably just means war. I doubt they'll be able to come up with anything else to their satisfaction.

So now we have no deal, sanctions back on, and no nuclear programme.
See More
0 +
Cyrus___ Cyrus___ (@Cyrus___) on Pinned comment
"The former UK foreign secretary Jack Straw, who is broadly sympathetic to Tehran’s moderate wing, argues that it is possible for the EU to continue to trade with Iran by blocking any US sanctions on European banks that trade with Iran.

He says it is possible for the EU to pass legislation stating that any US sanctions on European entities trading with Iran are null and void. The EU did much the same in protest at the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act passed by the US Congress in 1996. The EU passed a blocking statute, arguing as a matter of principle that it was wrong for the US to impose sanctions that had an extra-territorial effect."

Sure, the EU can try to do its own thing, but I do not believe this would be an effective measure, for reasons stated in the following paragraph of the article, but also because even under Obama, there was a strong reluctance to invest in Iran even after the sanctions were lifted. It was almost as if the sanctions were still in place. If Trump pulls the plug on the deal, the damage will be done; the strong reluctance from Western businesses will only get stronger. Russia, already hit by Western sanctions, would be the winner, China less-so owing to its stronger trade ties with the West, which it will choose over Iran.
See More
0 +
Cyrus___ Cyrus___ (@Cyrus___) on Pinned comment
This only matters for two reasons:
1. It's in our interests for America to be honest about the fact that we don't have a nuclear weapons programme.
2. Western Christian-type people aren't supposed to lie, whereas we are not only allowed to but expected to be creative with the truth. It's in our culture.
khkhkhkh
See More
0 +
Cyrus___ Cyrus___ (@Cyrus___) on Pinned comment
I think real LGBTQ people have far more to worry about than "activists".
And real LGBTQ people have far more to worry about than Pompeo.
Middle eastern LGBTQ people have to worry about being murdered by their family, an angry mob, ISIS or their government.
Middle eastern people in general have to worry about Pompeo...
See More
0 +
Cyrus___ Cyrus___ (@Cyrus___) on Pinned comment
They're much better off in socialist utopian Europe, anyway...

But from America's perspective, why should they want to take subjects of their enemies?
Yes, they say their real enemy is the government, not the people, but that's just rhetoric. They don't like the people, either, because people tend to get the government they deserve. The same applies to Iran.
See More
0 +
iraj iraj (@iraj) on Pinned comment
That's all fine Bernie, but just don't turn democrats against democrats or we may end up with another a..hole like Trump.
See More
1 +
Cyrus___ Cyrus___ (@Cyrus___) on Pinned comment
A very principled stand from a rather unprincipled government. Doesn't really make sense, but whatever... nuke subs can go anywhere. It won't hurt America at all.
See More
1 +
Cyrus___ Cyrus___ (@Cyrus___) on Pinned comment
There isn't much public debate, but there is plenty of alternative media coverage of the matter, which anyone interested can access, but at some level, I think most Americans probably support their empire. Certainly, were it explained to them that a withdrawal from imperial activities would jeopardize the ability of the US continue printing money out of thin air, which supports the American way of life and allows the US to continue dominating the entire god-damned world, maintain a military technical edge over the rest of the world etc. despite some pretty awful economic stats, most would support it.
See More
2 +