ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2017 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Sunday, February 05, 2017

The Iranian misstep

Banging the war drums against Iran appears to be the first major mistake of the God-Emperor's administration:
The big problem right now is Iran. Well, not Iran itself, of course, but the stupid anti-Iranian rhetoric of the Trump campaign before the elections. My biggest fear is that while Trump and the people around him have apparently come to the (correct) conclusion that they cannot bully Russia into submission they have decided that they could do that with Iran. If that is really their plan, then they are headed for a major disaster.

For one thing, Iran has been living with the threat of a AngloZionst attack for 38 years, including 23 years of Neocon power in the USA. To think that right now they will be suddenly really be frightened and will meekly comply with Uncle Shmuel’s demands is very naïve. The Iranians have been preparing for a war against the US and Israel for almost a quarter of a century – they are fine ready, both militarily and psychologically. Oh sure, the US can most definitely strike at Iran with cruise missile and air-strikes, but at what cost and what would that exactly achieve? In terms of achievement, it would have a beneficial psychotherapeutic effect on those Americans who feel insecure about their military size and who want to feel big and powerful again. It will also kills plenty of Iranians and destroy some unknown amount of Iranian targets, including possibility missile technology or nuclear technology related ones. But it will not change Iranian policies by even a tiny amount, nor will it prevent Iran from further pursuing nuclear or missile technologies.

But this has never been about nuclear or missile technology, of course. That is all nonsense, “informational prolefeed” so to speak.

In reality this was always about only one thing: Israel wanted to be THE regional superpower in the Middle-East and Iran was to be prevented from threatening this monopoly status by any means. In other words, if an Islamic country is mismanaged and run by incompetent fanatics, this is great. But when an Islamic country is run by a wise and extremely capable leadership which cannot be overthrown due to the fact that it has popular support, then this Islamic country becomes an absolutely unacceptable precedent. And Iran, with its advanced technologies, powerful military, strong economy and generally successful political and social model is an immense affront to the racist delusions of the Zionist regime in Palestine. Add to this that Iran dares to openly defy the United States and you immediately will see the real reasons for all the sabre-rattling and constant threats. The problem for Trump is exactly the same as the problem for Obama, Dubya or Clinton: the US cannot win a war against Iran. Why?

Because a war has to have some political objective, a definition of what “victory” means. In the case of Iran, there is no possible victory. Even of the US launches 1000-2000 missile strikes against Iran, and all of them are successful, this will not be a “victory”...

Furthermore, I submit that Iran is powerful enough to prevent any policy being successful in the Middle-East unless Iran at least passively okays it. In a way, Iran’s position in the Middle-East is similar to the Russian position in the “near abroad” (the former Soviet Union): while Iran/Russia cannot impose anything against everybody, Iran/Russia can veto/prevent any policy or outcome it does not want.

The main consequence of this is that even if Iran decided to completely renounce any kind of retaliatory counter-attack against the US or Israel, Iran could painfully retaliate against such a strike by simply telling Trump “we will make darn sure that you fail everywhere, in Iraq, in Syria, in Pakistan, and Yemen and everywhere else in the Middle-East”. And that won’t be an empty threat: the Iranians absolutely can deliver on it.
I have to admit, I fail to see ANY point in the US engaging with Iran at this point in time. Nuclear proliferation is going to happen; I have no doubt at all that Iran already possesses nuclear weapons of one sort or another. Perhaps that is what is driving this unexpected foreign policy belligerence on the part of the administration, perhaps the Israelis have told Trump that they will deal with it if he doesn't, I don't know.

It's also possible that this is Trump's customary A/B testing; he's shut down the neocons on Russia, so he's giving them their head on Iran. So far, they've failed with their special ops mission in Yemen, and I have no doubt that if they manage to make matters worse in the Middle East with their anti-Iran rhetoric, he'll send them packing just like he did with Chris Christie.

There would be something to be said for that if it weren't for the fact that the neocons have gone from one failure to the next for nearly 16 straight years. However, the silver lining is that I trust the God-Emperor to pull the plug on them once things go south, as they almost certainly will.

In any event, no one is going to solve the Middle East. It's not the West's problem and it's not within the West's power to resolve the situation, so it would be much better to simply stay out of it and let the various parties there sort it out among themselves.

Labels: ,

152 Comments:

Blogger Hunsdon February 05, 2017 11:05 AM  

With all the Marines in the cabinet I can understand the residual hostility, but damn, Beirut was a long time ago. I honestly pray that Mattis can overcome his hatred and resentment and look at it professionally. How many times has Trump head-faked his opponents? I hope and pray this is another one.

Anonymous Bobby Farr February 05, 2017 11:16 AM  

23 of 38? Is he not counting Obama as a neocon?

Blogger ZhukovG February 05, 2017 11:22 AM  

As Vox is well aware, there is public rhetoric and back channel communication.

I would not be surprised to find out that Trump, Putin and Iran are working together to provide Trump with at least some cover against the Neo-Cons. There may also be plans to provide Trump a 'geopolitical victory' to give him political capital for future diplomacy with Russia and Iran.

Blogger allyn71 February 05, 2017 11:25 AM  

The only way Trump fails to Make America Great Again is if he allows himself to get trapped into a foreign war. He goes to war with Iran and his entire domestic agenda is DOA.

He has not yet betrayed my faith, as such I will continue to support him but I hope he realizes his primary task is domestic and doesn't err from the path.

Blogger The Other Robot February 05, 2017 11:29 AM  

My concern at the moment is the political Seattle judge's TRO.

The 9th circuit, in what is probably a political decision, has refused to quickly overturn the pathetic 7-page ruling, so I suspect that this could go all the way to the SC.

I dunno how that is going to play out.

I hope that the ruling provided by Judge Gorton plays into this because it seems more carefully argued.

I guess we will see.

Blogger pyrrhus February 05, 2017 11:39 AM  

Totally correct, VD...Iran doesn't even have a bomb, while Pakistan has 200. Iran is zero threat to the USA, while Israel's whole nuclear program is based on 61 kilos of material stolen from the US, and technical information obtained from the US, France, and South Africa, with the tacit support of the US. Nor will Russia tolerate the conquest of its neighbor and the installation of US missiles and radar near the Russian border.....
The one thing that could destroy the Trump Presidency is a war with Iran.

Blogger bosscauser February 05, 2017 11:44 AM  

One assumes Putin n Trump didn't discuss a solution, hmm?
I actually like surprises....

Why do so many assume Trump can't handle these guys?

#PresidentTrump2020

Blogger Nick S February 05, 2017 11:44 AM  

I expect Trump to be instrumental in creating a safe zone within a new autonomous Assyrian Province in northern Iraq particularly for Christians, but, temporarily, also for Syrian refugees and others.

Blogger pyrrhus February 05, 2017 11:44 AM  

@5 The TRO is so blatantly irregular that it will inevitably be overturned, since there needs to be a finding of some chance of succeeding on the merits, and there isn't any under the Immigration Act...But it's going to take awhile. Meanwhile, Gorsuch will be confirmed and SCOTUS will subsequently be able to take the case.

Blogger pdwalker February 05, 2017 11:46 AM  

Trump will have enough battles at home to fight.

but let's see what happens in the next week or so. things may not be as it seems.

Blogger pyrrhus February 05, 2017 11:46 AM  

I think a lot of issues will be resolved very expeditiously if Trump and Putin establish a good relationship.....May Kek make it so!

Anonymous Cinco February 05, 2017 11:47 AM  

In any event, no one is going to solve the Middle East. It's not the West's problem and it's not within the West's power to resolve the situation, so it would be much better to simply stay out of it and let the various parties there sort it out among themselves.

when there is no solution, there is no problem.

Anonymous Longtime Lurker February 05, 2017 11:49 AM  

Recent administration moves against Iran were not backstopped by deployment of additional military assets to regional waters. Administration is posturing to reassure nervous regional allies and to give the Iranian regime notice that a new sherrif is in town.

Blogger synp February 05, 2017 11:49 AM  

Israel wanted to be THE regional superpower in the Middle-East and Iran was to be prevented from threatening this monopoly status by any means.

This is plain silly. Israel isn't and cannot be a regional superpower. At best it can be invulnerable. A regional superpower is one that can wield influence though the application of both carrots and sticks, and carrots require strong economic relations, While there's a bit of unofficial trade, there is not enough for Israel to have any influence on middle eastern governments.

There are only two credible candidates for regional superpower, Egypt's delusions notwithstanding. Those are Iran and Turkey. Interestingly, neither of them are Arab. And despite Netanyahu's disdain for Erdogan, his preference has always been Turkey.

I don't like Netanyahu much, but I don't think even he is so delusional as to imagine that Israel is a regional power.

Blogger The Other Robot February 05, 2017 11:52 AM  

@9: However, it is so dependent on timing, unless the SC defers taking it until the 9th judge is confirmed.

Blogger Basil Makedon February 05, 2017 11:52 AM  

This will be a positive post, I promise.

I don't think it is a mistake by Trump, I think it is more of establishing messaging baselines for all of the players at home and abroad.

To the Brits, he messages that he likes them and will work with them on trade deals at the front of the line.

To the Russians he messages, I'm not against you but don't mistake me for Obama.

To the neocons and neolibs he messages that he's making America-First decisions.

To the Iranians he messages -- do not fuck with me.

When he's done, everyone will know where they stand and essentially what he expects from them. This is a good thing, IMHO.

I've also read some articles that struck me as trial balloons being floated regarding Trump revealing all of the sordid details about the illegal, personal deal between Obama and Iran. Trump might feel he needs some provocation from them as a pretext to release all that information.

Blogger Cataline Sergius February 05, 2017 11:52 AM  

A war with Iran would be pointless but there is less point in trying to normalize relations with the Mullahs.

The justification for their continued rule is Death to the Great Satan. Not a lot to build on there.

Mostly this looks like it's formally ending Obama's era of attempted detente with Tehran.

Anonymous Cinco February 05, 2017 11:53 AM  

Then again, I just listened to a two-star general define winning on Friday. Get a load of this, he said winning was, "providing an outcome different than what would have otherwise occurred." I guess Napoleon won his winter invasion into Russia, beacuse well, the outcome was different than it would have been. Losing 390,000 men was just a speedbump on the road to winning.

Anonymous Lit Dog February 05, 2017 11:59 AM  

We need to let Trump know that his supporters oppose another MidEast war. It's the never-Trumpers who want this war with Iran. When the war goes south, they'll join with Dems to lead the charge for impeachment, and the Trump supporters will be too demoralized to fight back.

Blogger Jack Ward February 05, 2017 12:02 PM  

Referring to the Yemen raid. I have long felt that Obama is/was an authentic Manchurian candidate and traitor to the US. This raids planning was started under Obama. Would not surprise me at all that the Obama crew warned the radicals in Yemen that a raid was coming, how many troops, etc. and to be prepared.

Anonymous Andrew E. February 05, 2017 12:08 PM  

Trump likes to win. There's no winning a war with Iran. So it won't happen under Trump. I think Basil has it right, Trump is establishing new baselines with all the major players.

Anonymous Gen. Kong February 05, 2017 12:11 PM  

Funny how that tail with the non-existent lobby which cannot be named keeps on wagging all manner of dogs from the swamps of Sodom-on-Potomac to the Halls of Versailles, Brandenburg and well beyond. There is a difference between nationalism (such as we see with Trump's followers) and supremacism (as modeled nicely by the Israeli rabbi recently quoted in favor of genociding Europe's native population with Musloid invasion/colonization). There is a difference, despite the close relationship between the two.

I rather doubt it's only the Zionists who drive this interventionist policy - though it might be with Trump - but also the House of Saud, whose entire kingdom is little more than a house of cards propped up by the Banana Empire's legions and the Zionist state. If the Mullahs in Tehran or Qom managed to acquire nukes and vaporize Riyadh, there wouldn't be many tears.

Blogger Lazarus February 05, 2017 12:16 PM  

The focus on Iran seems to be part of the Syria strategy aimed at removing Iranian proxies (Hezbollah and others), in co-ordination with Russia.

Debka:

But Friday, the US President laid down his markers for the US-Iranian contest which has begun to unfold, and is not ruling out its further escalation into full military confrontations, which may involve America’s allies, including Saudi Arabia and Israel.

This contingency came up in the long conversation Trump held with Saudi King Salman on Jan. 29 and is widely covered in the Israeli prime minister’s almost daily discussions with members of his administration.
They all appreciate that Tehran or its Middle East proxies, such as the Lebanese Hizballah, may well hit back at the Trump administration in Syria or by limited military strikes against Riyadh and Tel Aviv.
These eventualities top Washington’s agenda for now and will dominate Middle East affairs in the near future.


Given the expectation of retaliation by Iran, the travel ban from Iranian allies is definitely a security issue.

Anonymous badhairday February 05, 2017 12:22 PM  

As far as I tell, the sanctions are against certain companies and certain individuals importing 'stuff'.

What's to stop the Iranians setting up another company just to import missile parts?

If he was serious, I imagine the Trump would ban the export of said stuff.

Seems to me that Trump is giving Iran a slap on the wrist for being caught testing a missile not for trying to develop one.

Anonymous Takin' a Look February 05, 2017 12:24 PM  

-Basil


"To the Iranians he messages -- do not fuck with me."

Add China and Israel to the list. Pyrrhic victories indeed if they start shit.

Anonymous Yann February 05, 2017 12:30 PM  

"In any event, no one is going to solve the Middle East. It's not the West's problem and it's not within the West's power to resolve the situation"

US prevented Israel from attacking nuclear facilities in Iran when it would have been an easy target. Now Iran is not such an easy target anymore. It's not a West problem, but it's a US problem because this is what US chose. US was free to let Iran and Israel solve their issues by themselves, but it decided to intervene.

So now stay and deal with the choices you made.

Blogger John Morris February 05, 2017 12:36 PM  

Gotta disagree. Russia isn't a threat because Putin doesn't hate us, doesn't want to conquer us. He only wants us to stay out of his business. We share several enemies in common. There is plenty of basis for a deal there to greatly improve relations.

Iran is a different kettle of fish. When a nation makes a point of walking out religious services chanting "Death to America, Death to Israel!" every Friday for what, thirty six years now, we should do them the courtesy of believing they mean it. They hate us, they seek the means to destroy us and Obama has all but assured they will have it.

Ignoring the problem will not solve it. We should at a minimum foment a revolution similar to the one that Obama ignored, on the grounds that unlike the rest of the Middle East, where Poop Midas did encourage the "Arab Spring", Iran isn't likely to get worse. Seriously, what is the worst that could happen, a genocidal Islamist dictator seizes power and begins working on WMD?

If that fails, more physical measures might be required because I don't think anybody is talking them out of their mission. MAD won't work on them either, they don't care. The Soviets were godless commies, which meant they wanted to rule this world and preferred it not be a post apocalypse hellhole. Iran doesn't care, they want the world to burn so the Madhi will come. Agree that an all out war is full of danger but so is doing nothing. A third option is welcome, but people have been trying for a long time now.

Blogger tz February 05, 2017 12:37 PM  

Missing: the EU. They don't want to return to sanctions (Airbus, and Iran dealing in petroEuros props it up) or have their oil supply threatened. The ports and oil tankers are big fat targets.

Blogger modsquad February 05, 2017 12:39 PM  

The Iranians held off releasing the hostages until Reagan took office. The Shah was overthrown by the Ayatollah, who'd just spent 20 years nestled in Paris, waiting for his turn. The Iranian-U.S. relationship is the same as it's always been, two peas in a pod.

Blogger tz February 05, 2017 12:39 PM  

When a nation makes a point of walking out religious services chanting "Death to America, Death to Israel!" every Friday for what, thirty six years now, we should do them the courtesy of believing they mean it.

The cuckservatives also said a lot of things for a longer period.
There is no shia al-queda, and Hezbolla seems confined to Lebanon and environs.
Al Queda is a Saudi creation. They brought death to America. But Bush loves Saud.

Anonymous Gen. Kong February 05, 2017 12:40 PM  

I don't like Netanyahu much, but I don't think even he is so delusional as to imagine that Israel is a regional power.

Netanyahu has nukes (more than any member of the EUSSR) and Israel never ratified any of the treaties pertaining to WMD, so they no doubt have considerable stocks of chemical and biological weapons as well. He also has the submarines and planes to actually deliver such weapons. Neither Turkey or Iran have any of these. By default, Israel is the regional superpower - relative small size of conventional forces notwithstanding. Additionally, for those who like to engage in the pipe-dream than Israeli is only interested in defending its own territory, note their involvement in Georgia (2008), their support of ISIS against Assad (ongoing). Assad was never a strategic threat to them. The best he could ever do was maybe stir up Hezbollah in Lebanon to create some chaos. The USA cannot afford another war in the middle east, since we moving closer to Civil War II here at home. Hopefully the saber-rattling at the Iranians will remain just that. Perhaps this was the price for the support of Uncle Sheldon (dual-citizen)?

Blogger Ransom Smith February 05, 2017 12:43 PM  

Is it theoretically possible, that this is all an attempt to prevent the seemingly inevitable Sunni/Shiite war that has been brewing?

The Saudis and Iran have been spitting at each other for god knows how long. Could it be that Trump is desperately trying to stop a powder keg from igniting?

Blogger Lovekraft February 05, 2017 12:52 PM  

Dis-entanglement is essential while assuring the void that's left is 'manageable.'

Likely this is what's preventing anyone trying to free themselves from anything associated with the ME, Africa etc.

Trump can do this if we win this war of WhoReceivesOurCompassion?

Anonymous mark in orlando February 05, 2017 1:02 PM  

if Iran is kept off balance and somewhat off limits for foreign investment, that will keep its oil production and oil export potential down, the result may be a higher world price for oil which benefits Russia and certain US allies and hurts China, and keeps petrodollar hegemony

Blogger Jim February 05, 2017 1:11 PM  

"Misstep?" It was totally predictable based on the per-campaign rhetoric as well as the people he selected for the cabinet. But it's WORSE than what you're indicating. You're missing the bigger picture. Our involvement in the slaughter in Yemen is because of Obama's need to placate the Saudi's after the Iran deal.

So NOW we have souring relations with Iran AND Flynn escalating our Yemen involvement. I didn't think anything could be more incoherent than Obama's policy in the middle east; it was one of the main reasons I voted for Trump. And NOW we have no reason to uphold the Iran deal AND, as if we forgot the ONLY reason we're IN Yemen, we're becoming more involved there. WTF?

The explanation? Israel and Saudi Arabia ... some things never change.

Blogger Stilicho February 05, 2017 1:14 PM  

16 years? The yugoslavian fiasco was neoconnery as well. The first gulf war had some elements of it as well (and the relative success there unfortunately encouraged the Neocons to jump into every conflict they found).

Blogger YIH February 05, 2017 1:21 PM  

It is a major mistake. My opinion of the threat from Iran is the same as it was vis. a vis. Iraq 15 years ago. A potential threat, in the future? Just possibly. An actual threat now? No way. I was raised in the Cold War era, where the media was continually promoting that ''WWIII'' between the Soviets and the American Empire could happen at any minute - even by accident.
Yet between a combination of suggestive saber rattling and diplomacy the Reagan Administration managed to not only ''contain'' the Soviet Union it was able to ultimately defeat it, with very minimal bloodshed.
No, not even North Korea rises to that threat level - assuming, as is commonly believed, they do have at least nuclear weapons of WWII power, and the ability to use them on S. Korea or Japan.
Arguably, Iran has every reason to develop nuclear weapons, they have an unfriendly Turkey to the north, a very hostile (and nuclear armed) Israel to the west of them and a very questionable Sunni Pakistan to the East of them. Not to mention an American Empire with their nukes targeted and readied to launch at them.
I hope the Trump Administration is only 'saber rattling', as Iran was.

Blogger VD February 05, 2017 1:32 PM  

So now stay and deal with the choices you made.

No. We didn't make those choices. Not our problem.

Blogger Duinne Eile February 05, 2017 1:34 PM  

Iran is a different kettle of fish. When a nation makes a point of walking out religious services chanting "Death to America, Death to Israel!" every Friday for what, thirty six years now, we should do them the courtesy of believing they mean it. They hate us, they seek the means to destroy us and Obama has all but assured they will have it.


They hate Israel/Saudi, they don't really care about the US, if they do its only because the US props up Israel/Saudi

As it happens the Saudis are finished, they run out of cash in 2020 and there is little chance of oil prices rising to save them, oil fracking and EVs will kill them, great days ahead, all Trump and the US need to do is stay out of foolish wars in the Middle East

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) February 05, 2017 1:51 PM  

To the armchair generals in this thread arguing "this time it's different because Iran is different,"

Have you learned nothing from the last sixteen years?

Blogger Elder Son February 05, 2017 2:02 PM  

I don't like Netanyahu much, but I don't think even he is so delusional as to imagine that Israel is a regional power. ---> USA Military Industrial Complex.

As it happens the Saudis are finished... I wouldn't count them out yet. Here is an interesting take on Saudi Arabia: https://youtu.be/GCkcgmUfrjs

And remember, despite President Trump, the NWO/Babel marches on.

And, in regards to the above vid, here is another interesting take on Trump and what Israels top Rabbis think of him: https://youtu.be/sxLdbL4pyGE

Blogger Elder Son February 05, 2017 2:08 PM  

Have you learned nothing from the last sixteen years?

But, but Gulf War 1!

Because Iran would sit there and let them build up for months for the imminent invasion. Besides, Syria. And still, "Safe Zones" are still code for: Where Russia and Assad are not, and US Mil/CIA are.

Blogger Skyler the Weird February 05, 2017 2:14 PM  

I'm wondering if Israel is threatening to use a Crash of 79 scenario against Iran, nuke the Oil Fields and send the world plummeting into a meltdown if Trump doesn't do something to roll back the Iranian nuclear plan.

If Trump just holds back the younger generation is getting fed up with the mullahs and this time when the Persian Spring or Green Revolution hits, support the Students and Middle class.

Blogger RmaxGenactivePUA Mgtow February 05, 2017 2:20 PM  

This is All a ploy by Trump to deliberately force the neocons to fail.

Neocons are horrendous at logistics & intelligence, their jews first, their vested interests in arms & munition will always put profit instead of competency

Which is jews always lewse ... lol

Trumps setting them up for a fall, he knows jews always lewse, with all their conflicts of interest ...

Anonymous BBGKB February 05, 2017 2:30 PM  

Interesting step by Russia, white flight
https://www.rt.com/politics/322404-government-drafts-bill-on-free/

bill allowing every Russian citizen to get 1 hectare land plot in the Far East for free on condition that the land would not be passed on or rented to foreigners... The bill also prohibits any use of land plots received for free by foreign citizens. It specifically details all types of legal (((schemes))) used in real estate to get around this and bans them – for example actual sale, passing as a gift, renting out, trust management, free use, etc.

Blogger John Williams February 05, 2017 2:32 PM  

when there is no solution, there is no problem
It just is, like Mount Everest is.

nuke the oil fields????
This isn't '79, there's more known oil & gas around the world than anyone imagined there could be. Just before the glut, the US was on track to be an energy exporter.

Iran is all about brinksmanship and moving the Overton Window.

Anonymous Build the wall February 05, 2017 2:39 PM  

I was hoping that Trump was going to focus more on domestic issues. This thing with Iran is just stupid.

He needs to get back to deporting Moslems and Mexican filth. All his saber rattling against China is also pointless. Renegotiating trade deals in one thing, war posturing is another.

Blogger Knight Of the Realm February 05, 2017 2:43 PM  

I keep reading there's no winning a war with Iran for various reasons; go back a few years replace Iraq in place of Iran. You would think I was in a time machine; then it was all about the vaulted Replubican Guard who fought the Iranians to a stand still for almost a decade. Battle hardened well armored fighting machine! They were a fucking joke we couldn't detain them fast enough. We have no business in nation building; however allowing the Mullas to obtain a nuke and delivery system is insane. Simply define a war as no high level technology left, no offensive military left, no oil exporting abilities left; burn their shit down and walk away. It would reduce their ability to fund terriost and end the threat for a few years.

Blogger Balázs Varga February 05, 2017 2:58 PM  

The more muslim countries have nukes, the closer we are to them firing it.

All European countries should have their own ICBMs if they are to survive what is coming from the South, but hope is very slim. Wish Trump could sell some to us.

Anonymous Clay February 05, 2017 3:06 PM  

I've seen the supposed attack on the Saudi Ship by Iranian "rebels". Looks like a pretty damn good hit. I assume it's actually footage....then, nada.

Just what hit that ship? A missile? What type? Who, what, where was it fired from? What was the damage?

Are the Sauds just laying down and taking it?

Seems to me to be a major story, but certainly not being treated as such.

Blogger YIH February 05, 2017 3:13 PM  

Duinne Eile wrote:Iran is a different kettle of fish. When a nation makes a point of walking out religious services chanting "Death to America, Death to Israel!" every Friday for what, thirty six years now, we should do them the courtesy of believing they mean it. They hate us, they seek the means to destroy us and Obama has all but assured they will have it.

They hate Israel/Saudi, they don't really care about the US, if they do its only because the US props up Israel/Saudi

As it happens the Saudis are finished, they run out of cash in 2020 and there is little chance of oil prices rising to save them, oil fracking and EVs will kill them, great days ahead, all Trump and the US need to do is stay out of foolish wars in the Middle East

And yet a country that is nuclear armed considers any and ALL Christians ''not human'' and is more friendly to moslims. Go figure.

Blogger Chris Mallory February 05, 2017 3:14 PM  

John Morris wrote:When a nation makes a point of walking out religious services chanting "Death to America, Death to Israel!" every Friday for what, thirty six years now, we should do them the courtesy of believing they mean it.

And when people like you and Jonny Boy McCain chant "Death to Iran" for the past 37 years they are just supposed to ignore it?

Blogger Elder Son February 05, 2017 3:18 PM  

@50 Supposedly a suicide boat. And not Iranian rebels. Houthis. Throwing "Iranian" into "rebels" into Yemen into Houthis gives you the impression of what? OMG! It's the IRANIANS!

NOT, Saudi Arabia. <--- Supporters of Wahhabism terrorists everywhere. Pure Islam/ISIS/Flavor of the day.

Blogger Skyler the Weird February 05, 2017 3:23 PM  

Crash of 79 was a book by Paul Erdman where the Shah tries to control the mid east oil by building up his nuclear arsenal. Nuclear attack on Israel goes awry and the Persian Oil Fields are irradiated.

Blogger YIH February 05, 2017 3:24 PM  

When a nation makes a point of walking out religious services chanting "Death to America, Death to Israel!" every Friday.
Oh you mean a lot like those who have hated Christians of lets see, [looks at calender on the wall] oh, about Two Thousand and Seventeen Years!
And consider those who accept Jesus as a savior SCUM, even if they are completely merchant.

Blogger Jourdan February 05, 2017 3:29 PM  

I disagree with Vox's point here and discuss why on my own site today.

"Vox Day has an interesting piece up about what he characterizes as the God-Emperor’s “first major mistake” of his administration by banging the drums of war about Iran. The piece is well argued and could stand in for a large number of posts across the broad Alt-Right right now.

Vox’s and the broader new right’s concerns here are mistaken, however. The concerns make two fundamental errors in their analysis of Trump’s aggressive and hostile stance towards the Islamic Republic."

To read my reasoning, go here:

https://placejourdan.wordpress.com/2017/02/05/196/

Blogger FUCK GOOGLE February 05, 2017 3:33 PM  

@39 "Iran is a different kettle of fish. When a nation makes a point of walking out religious services chanting "Death to America, Death to Israel!" every Friday for what, thirty six years now, we should do them the courtesy of believing they mean it. They hate us, they seek the means to destroy us and Obama has all but assured they will have it."

They do the same thing in Pakistan (chanting death to America). So why aren't we worried about nuclear Pakistan? Especially since Pakistan is always about a cunt hair away from full blown war with India, another regional nuclear power? Also, Pakistan HAS nukes. 100% confirmed. Not only that, but they have been the worst state actor when it comes to proliferation - North Korea has a nuclear program because of Pakistan, and the Saudis plan to buy nukes from the Paks if/when the Iranians get theirs.

Also, you can look up articles from the 1980s with headlines like "Iran less than a year from nuclear weapons!".

While I have no doubt that the Iranians want nukes and are pursuing them, I do not think they are nearly as crazy as the neocons portray them to be. Secondly, they want an actual conflict with the US like they want a hole in their head - what they actually want is for the US to stop supporting the House of Saud and Israel.

Frankly, I'm tired of being entangled in this latest installment of the Sunni/Shia proxy war that's been going on for 1000+ years. We don't need anything from either side anymore what with our newly found status as an energy superpower. I say fuck 'em, let them fight it out and just keep the carnage localized in the sandbox (the EU would need to grow a spine and actually stop refugees from crossing the Med or heading North thru Turkey/the Balkans though).

The fact that the neocons don't care about Pakistan at all but have been beating the same "Iran is SUPER CLOSE TO HAVING NUKES WE NEED TO INVADE THEM" drum for 30+ years tells me this is just another chapter neocon military adventurism.

Also, I don't think Trump will allow neocons to drag us into an actual conflict with Iran - I think Trump is trying to salvage some kind of dignity from the last administration's many embarrassments at the hands of Iran just to show Iran that the Trump administration isn't going to stand for them boarding our ships, etc.

So far, Trump has proven to be thinking far ahead of everyone else who would try to manipulate him/his administration for their own ends - so I have no problem putting my trust in him that he will not be used this time, either.

Blogger Elder Son February 05, 2017 3:35 PM  

@48 Maybe you ought to think that through. Any attack on Iran by the USA, would be an attack on Iran by the Arab gulf nations. Your thinking a gulf conflagration. Not to mention an ecological disaster that would make Iraq look like Sunday school. So yeah, let's just get with Russia and China, and get their permission to just massively nuke Iran all in one shot.

Blogger Duinne Eile February 05, 2017 3:59 PM  

I keep reading there's no winning a war with Iran for various reasons; go back a few years replace Iraq in place of Iran

Do you actually want to invade Iran, an country of close to 80 million people, Iraq was less than half that size and the Kurds and the Shia would never fight for Saddam, now some will say Iran is the same with its own Kurds and other minorities, but they are clearly a tougher nut to crack, for example Iran has 3 Kilo class Submarines, just one of these boats would be enough to sink an American carrier, and if that happens the US just looks dumb, and so since I assume it will be an air war with no boots on the ground thats also foolish since the Iranians have most of their important sites deep underground

Leave Iran alone, there is no upside to that war

Anonymous One Deplorable DT February 05, 2017 4:06 PM  

A nuclear Iran is not good for anyone. It's not difficult to imagine:

* Iran holding Europe hostage simply by aiming its missiles.

* Iran firing on Turkey triggering a nuclear war with NATO and possibly Russia.

* A 9/11 event with NYC and DC razed to the ground.

* A first strike on Israel that results in a nuclear exchange which leaves the middle east smoldering and the globe starving for oil. And by starving I mean literally because the world won't have sufficient oil to grow and transport food for everyone. Try to imagine Trump's wall holding up with a significant fraction of the central and south American hordes beating on it.

* Any of the above compounded with a nuclear Saudi Arabia since they will almost certainly develop or buy nukes once Iran has them.

As Knight Of the Realm points out (@48) we have no business nation building, but we would have little difficulty destroying Iran's ability to make a bomb. And there is a successful historical precedent for this: Operation Opera in 1981 crushed Saddam's hopes of ever having the bomb. And that was by Israeli aircraft in 1981 which could not hold a candle to what the USAF has today.

But for that Saddam might have had nuclear weapons when he decided to invade Kuwait, which almost certainly would have meant the invasion spreading into Iran in one direction and Saudi Arabia in the other. Play out those scenarios in your head sometime.

I see only two rational responses to a nuclear Iran:

A) A stealth first strike to destroy their facilities. Tell them the next morning that they are not going to be permitted to have nukes or long range missiles while they preach 'death to' any other nation. And that if they respond or escalate we will be happy to destroy their navy, their ports, and their oil fields. And that there will be no invasion force to shoot at, nor any UN relief for their dead and dying.

B) Accept that they will soon be a hostile nuclear power. Which means instating MAD doctrine. Make it iron clad US policy that any use of an an Iranian nuclear weapon any where in the world, including by terrorists, will result in the immediate and total nuclear destruction of Iran and all her people. Announce that the US will proceed with a nuclear first strike in the event that Iran so much as threatens a US ally, including Israel, with her nukes. Sign treaties with Israel and Saudi Arabia and deploy US missiles to those regions so that Iran has no warning time and no hope if the US decides to strike. Deploy a large number of ABM systems to Israel, the Mediterranean and Gulf, and eastern Europe.

Then deal with a Russia that is furious over the deployments because the same missiles could be aimed at her. Accept that Cold War 2.0 might be the necessary end result of permitting a nuclear Iran.

Honestly? I would rather the God-Emperor go for option A.

Anonymous One Deplorable DT February 05, 2017 4:24 PM  

@57 - They do the same thing in Pakistan (chanting death to America). So why aren't we worried about nuclear Pakistan?

We are worried about a nuclear armed Pakistan. Make no mistake, we would rather Pakistan and India had never developed nukes. No one in the world was supposed to get nukes after the initial five had them.

But there are two key differences with Pakistan.

One is that, like North Korea, they already have them. It's a lot easier to prevent a nation from acquiring them than it is to do something after the fact.

Two is that while there are people in Pakistan who chant "death to America", there are also people who have no such intentions, and those people tend to have the upper hand in government. The opposite is true in Iran. The radicals have control there.

@59 - Do you actually want to invade Iran, an country of close to 80 million people

Who said anything about an invasion? Iran's nuclear facilities could be destroyed at a level of cost and risk that is not much greater than regularly scheduled Red Flag exercises. (Queue a post about Russian made Rabid Satan Super SAMs that can shoot down the ISS.)

Iran has 3 Kilo class Submarines, just one of these boats would be enough to sink an American carrier

You have to get close enough to do that, before a US sub or anti-sub surface asset sinks you. Odds are whenever those Iranian subs are in the water they are being tracked and trailed by US assets without even knowing it.

But I'll concede there is a non-zero probability of Iran causing major damage to the US Navy in the gulf. Which is why the morning after the strikes you announce that if Iran escalates you will cripple them as a nation. No navy, no air force, no oil, and no UN assistance for their dead/dying. We can do that conventionally, from the air, in short order and without involving our carrier assets if we have to pull the back for safety.

If the US decides to impose its will regarding Iranian nukes there's nothing Iran can do about it. Now. That won't be true once they have nuclear tipped ballistic missiles.

...thats also foolish since the Iranians have most of their important sites deep underground

We have bombs to deal with deep sites.

Blogger Duinne Eile February 05, 2017 4:26 PM  

Honestly? I would rather the God-Emperor go for option A.

Why, why do you even care ?

this is a joke

If Israel wants peace with the Arabs and Iran they could have it very quick, and if they don't want peace let them fight the wars not the US

Anonymous Brad February 05, 2017 4:55 PM  

I agree with Vox totally on Iran, and would extend this to any hostil rhetoric towards China. Why should we care what China does in the South China Sea?

Leave Russian territory to Russia
Let the middle east fight over the middle east
Let China do as it wants in the south China sea
MAGA

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) February 05, 2017 5:13 PM  

A nuclear Iran is not good for anyone. It's not difficult to imagine:

Replace Iran with Iraq and every scenario you presented was repeated ad nauseum in 2002.

Blogger synp February 05, 2017 5:21 PM  

Gen. Kong wrote:I don't like Netanyahu much, but I don't think even he is so delusional as to imagine that Israel is a regional power.

Netanyahu has nukes (more than any member of the EUSSR) and Israel never ratified any of the treaties pertaining to WMD, so they no doubt have considerable stocks of chemical and biological weapons as well. He also has the submarines and planes to actually deliver such weapons.


This does not make a super-power. This is the "don't fuck with us" kit that you need in such a hostile environment.

Neither Turkey or Iran have any of these. By default, Israel is the regional superpower - relative small size of conventional forces notwithstanding. Additionally, for those who like to engage in the pipe-dream than Israeli is only interested in defending its own territory, note their involvement in Georgia (2008), their support of ISIS against Assad (ongoing). Assad was never a strategic threat to them. The best he could ever do was maybe stir up Hezbollah in Lebanon to create some chaos.

You are contradicting yourself. Anyone who knows anything about the region understands that on Syria the interests of Israel, Iran and Russia are aligned. Assad is vulnerable and non-threatening, and Israel would much rather have him stick around than have his regime replaced by ISIS. However, not being a real regional power, Israel has very little influence on the matter.

Blogger Duinne Eile February 05, 2017 5:27 PM  

You have to get close enough to do that, before a US sub or anti-sub surface asset sinks you. Odds are whenever those Iranian subs are in the water they are being tracked and trailed by US assets without even knowing it.

Don't bet on it

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/sweden-has-a-sub-thats-so-deadly-the-us-navy-hired-it-t-1649695984

I'm not sure if the Kilo class is as good as the Gotland Class, but it doesn't need to be, it only needs to be good enough to sink one Aircraft Carrier, after that the US has lost

And the idea that the US can take out every deep Iranian base is just foolish, some of these bases are buried under mountains, war with Iran won't weaken the Mullahs it will only make them stronger, right now most people in Iran actually like the West/US, war with them would only change that

Blogger Cail Corishev February 05, 2017 5:32 PM  

This is one issue where I can't get a bead on Trump, because his campaign rhetoric was contradictory -- generally isolationist, but occasionally talking tough on Iran. I didn't care, because immigration was the only issue that mattered (no, I'm not being facetious about that. It was). But I'm hoping his isolationist side is running things, and this tough talk has some strategic purpose. I'm sure he doesn't want a war to distract from his economic goals, so as long as he doesn't let the neo-cons or the soldiers convince him a quick strike can solve a problem without war, we should be okay.

As far as the theory that it's a test or trap for the neo-cons: why would that be necessary? They lost the election, and discredited themselves in the process. They already hanged themselves; there's no need to give them any more rope. Leave them out in the cold with their cuck and NeverTrump buddies where they belong.

Blogger Duinne Eile February 05, 2017 5:33 PM  

Assad is vulnerable and non-threatening, and Israel would much rather have him stick around than have his regime replaced by ISIS. However, not being a real regional power, Israel has very little influence on the matter


Israel want Assad gone, the Saudis and Israel are the main backers of ISIS, no serious person doubts this

I read an interview in the Israeli press with Netanyahu a while back, and he talked about Israel's relationship with the Arab countries in the region, but the one country he refused to talk about was Saudi Arabia, why ? because they are allies

Blogger Mark February 05, 2017 5:45 PM  

You have nailed it on Iran, they are not a threat to the United States. Additionally, despite their mullah led government, there is a very large segment of the population that is pro-American, probably larger than any other country in the Middle East. We should be cultivating a better relationship with Iran as our enemies in the region are theirs. But there is Israel...and they call our shots for us.

Anonymous Post Alley Crackpot February 05, 2017 6:00 PM  

There's a bigger plan in motion.

Think of the economic trajectory that Iran is on, given that oil is trading far below the level that Iran needs to make its economy work with its current arrangements, and then think of what the inevitable outcome would be of diverting funds needed for domestic tranquility toward various foreign operations.

The US doesn't have to engage Iran directly.

In fact, the US would ultimately benefit from Iran's over-involvement in such things as attempting to make the US fail "everywhere, in Iraq, in Syria, in Pakistan, and Yemen and everywhere else in the Middle-East".

The trick for the US is to invoke George Kennan's "containment theory" from the Cold War with the Soviets, but with a twist: drawing Iran into proxy confrontations that will lead to an economic and social collapse.

Should Iran decide to turn "full rogue", the Trump administration would have everything it would need to declare Iran a "terrorist state", which is an attractive outcome for many US domestic political and social concerns.

Naturally, this gamble comes with its costs.

The costs for the US involve taxpayer funds, military lives, and a commitment to keep the pressure on which may be subject to political manoeuvres.

The costs for Iran involve potential political destabilisation, economic collapse, and perhaps another revolution.

If the revolution goes "the wrong way" for the US, then the US gets the enemy it's been wanting to fight for all this time.

Cold Wars are often boring affairs, and the US has been needing another Hot War to take the collective American mind off the distractions at home.

Why not spice this Cold War up just a bit then?

Blogger Elder Son February 05, 2017 6:27 PM  

Here's an idea. Why not just admit that we are actually Wahhabi and Israeli bitches?

I see some people are still on board the neo-con 7 countries in 5 years plus plan.

Figure out the Iranian counter and is it really worth it:

http://www.worldatlas.com/img/areamap/continent/middle_east_map.gif

Why! We'll just "stealth bomb" them! In fact, after we stealth bomb them, tell them it wasn't us because stealth, but wink-wink you better be nice, OR ELSE!

Any attack on Iran, will be seen as an attack on Iran by the Arab Coalition. It's just stoo-pid.

Blogger Elder Son February 05, 2017 6:29 PM  

McCainiacs.

Anonymous One Deplorable DT February 05, 2017 6:36 PM  

@62 - Why, why do you even care ?

Because the Iranian government is bat shit insane. They don't even have the sense that the North Koreans have.

If you're going to let them have nukes you might as well give some nukes to the professors at UC Berkley, the Mexicans in La Raza, or Antifa.

If Israel wants peace with the Arabs and Iran they could have it very quick, and if they don't want peace let them fight the wars not the US

You can completely remove Israel from the equation and a nuclear armed Iran still poses unacceptable risks.

And Iran can have peace with the entire globe. Just don't defy the globe by acquiring weapons that are forbidden to all but five.

The five nuclear powers should not have accepted a nuclear India, Pakistan, or North Korea. Proliferation should have never occurred beyond China.

@64 - Replace Iran with Iraq and every scenario you presented was repeated ad nauseum in 2002.

Except that Iraq's related infrastructure was damaged in 1981 and destroyed in 1991. They didn't have a path to a nuclear weapon.

And we invaded Iraq, boots on the ground, with the goal of nation building. I would be adamantly opposed to any such attempt in Iran.

@66 - a Gotland is not a Kilo, just as an airstrike is not a war.

Blogger JaimeInTexas February 05, 2017 6:56 PM  

Can you point at any action by Iran, foreign policy or intervention, that was irrational?

Blogger JaimeInTexas February 05, 2017 7:04 PM  

Look at a globe. Locatec Washington, DC. Now locate, say, Syria. Find Teheran. What the f#$$@ are we doing sending our defense forces 5000 miles away?

BTW, are you on the ground fighting the Iranians? Why not?

Blogger John Morris February 05, 2017 7:15 PM  

Chris Mallory wrote: And when people like you and Jonny Boy McCain chant "Death to Iran" for the past 37 years they are just supposed to ignore it?

Eh? I think false equivalency is your fallacy.

1. If we wanted Iran nuked they would glass by now.

2. I don't recall seeing Americans stream out of church service by the million chanting "Death to Iran!" every Sunday. I certainly haven't seen our leaders pour out of the National Cathedral doing it.

If we wait to see if Iran 'really means it' we will have waited too long. Either they will be using the blackmail power of nukes or actually reduced an American city or three to ash.

Sorry, if you tell me for three decades that you intend to kill me, I plan to shoot you squarely in the head the second you reach for a weapon. Iran is reaching for a weapon and we have the power to shoot them in the head, if they succeed in bombing us it is entirely OUR fault because stupidity should be a fatal disease.

FUCK GOOGLE wrote:They do the same thing in Pakistan (chanting death to America). So why aren't we worried about nuclear Pakistan? Especially since Pakistan is always about a cunt hair away from full blown war with India, another regional nuclear power? Also, Pakistan HAS nukes. 100% confirmed. Not only that, but they have been the worst state actor when it comes to proliferation - North Korea has a nuclear program because of Pakistan, and the Saudis plan to buy nukes from the Paks if/when the Iranians get theirs.

Who thought Pakistan getting nukes was a good idea, other than Clinton and Mad Albright? But that is the past, we can't change it. It should also be noted that a pro Western dictator was in charge at the time, not a genocidal Islamist maniac. And yes, your example is instructive, look how much more trouble Pakistan has been able to get away with under their nuke shields.

Blogger James Dixon February 05, 2017 7:16 PM  

> Mostly this looks like it's formally ending Obama's era of attempted detente with Tehran.

That's the way I'm looking at it at this point. We'll have to wait and see what develops to be sure.

> Would not surprise me at all that the Obama crew warned the radicals in Yemen that a raid was coming,

I can't say it would surprise me in the least either.

> * A 9/11 event with NYC and DC razed to the ground.

Well, there's always a silver lining.

Blogger Mountain Man February 05, 2017 7:35 PM  

"In any event, no one is going to solve the Middle East. It's not the West's problem and it's not within the West's power to resolve the situation, so it would be much better to simply stay out of it and let the various parties there sort it out among themselves."

Amen ! Tuer words have never been written. The only presidential candidate to fully grasp this was Ron Paul. Unfortunately he lacked any and all charisma.

Blogger Mountain Man February 05, 2017 7:39 PM  

There are a lot of very influential and powerful people and institutions who have a lot to lose if perpetual war is not maintained by the US. In not so many words they have probably made it clear to the POTUS that if the war isn't going to be with Russia it needs to be with someone equally important.
To quote Randolph Bourne: "War is the health of the State"

Anonymous the management February 05, 2017 8:04 PM  

John Morris wrote:If we wait to see if Iran 'really means it' we will have waited too long. Either they will be using the blackmail power of nukes or actually reduced an American city or three to ash.



Typical Cuckenhawk - tell us where the Jewish psychologist told you where the Iranians touched him on your doll.

Blogger Elder Son February 05, 2017 9:09 PM  

Remember: There is a war on for your mind.

Choose_the right_side.

And they will not get their NWO-Babel peacefully. They will not get it by consent, so they will get it by the conquest of global misery. There must be a REASON for the "Man of Peace" to enter the world stage and convince you that his "peace" is the way.

And of course the USA is/was "The Great Satan". We have been the spearhead of globalism/Babelism.

Anonymous JB February 05, 2017 9:55 PM  

@81: Exactly. See this very interesting study for further details: http://www.redmoonrising.com/Ikhwan/Clash.htm

Blogger Elder Son February 05, 2017 10:15 PM  

Iranian Rebels, er... Yemen Houthis have launched a ballistic missile into Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

This will no doubt inflame the Yemen conversation in the US, as Republicans are attempting to frame Saudi’s war on Yemen as an Iranian proxy war against Saudi Arabia, and Yemen’s current Ansarullah (aka the “Houthis”) government as “tools of the Iranian Regime,” thus reinforcing a neoconservative and Israeli foreign policy narrative for the Persian Gulf region.

http://21stcenturywire.com/2017/02/05/breaking-yemeni-missile-strikes-saudi-capital-city-riyadh/

https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/breaking-ballistic-missile-strikes-riyadh-saudi-arabia/

As of yet, this is the only source I can find.

Anonymous CoolHand February 05, 2017 10:31 PM  

OK guys, don your tinfoil head coverings, I'm about to spin one hell of a conspiracy theory for you.

[tinfoil_hat]

For a moment, let's assume (just for the sake of argument) that Trump is NOT under the invisible control of the terrible all powerful Jooooos.

What has Iran always threatened as a guaranteed first repercussion of being attacked? Anyone remember? That's right, they've trained for decades to close the Persian Gulf to all sea traffic and choke the middle eastern oil trade.

So, what if (and remember, this is waaaay into tinfoil hat land, but bear with me) Trump wants to turn the US into an oil exporting nation while simultaneously boosting the price of oil and strengthening the petro-dollar? What one single action could precipitate all of that at once?

Closing down the Persian Gulf to tanker traffic would do quite nicely, wouldn't it?

Who would this hurt the worst? Saudi Arabia, Kuwait et al.

Iran would be the ones enforcing the blockade, so their tankers could transit with no issues. The world would bitch and make noises, but they're doing that now.

For this gambit to work, we'd need to either piss them off enough to make them act, but not enough to escalate too far, or have a chat with them beforehand and work it all out in advance. IE strike pre-arranged targets that are not important and unmanned on purpose, which will make a big enough show to justify the Iranian blockade, and then pull back and give each other the Evil Eye from 10 miles distance for the foreseeable future.

The US would take some egg on the face in the news, but the Saudis would be finished for all intents and purposes, and all that oil revenue could be split up amongst the US, Russia, Egypt, and Iran.

Talk about revving up the economy. If we went from a net oil importer to an exporter of 1/4-1/3 Saudi Arabia's size, our GDP would literally leap off the graph scale, as would the Russians, the Iranians, and all the Arab states that were left an export lane (IE not the Gulf states).

I'm not an expert on oil production, but I know for a fact that we've currently got on the back burner enough oil to feed our own needs at the very least. That's not talking about new wells that need drilled and developed, but rather current wells that aren't producing because of the current low price.

Of course the Gulf states will still get a vote on such a plan militarily, but if they could take on Iran by themselves, they wouldn't be constantly trying to get us to do it for them. Might be that when cornered they can fight better than we've seen arabs muster in the past, but I doubt it. Though again, not an expert in any sense of the word.

Like I said, this is deep into tinfoil hat land, and I am just some random redneck fatman out here in BFE (so what the fuck do I know, right?), but in the realm of international politics, much more convoluted plans have been attempted in the past (and some have even worked).

Maybe Trump really IS a 13 dimensional underwater hookah style Mahjong master after all.

[/tinfoil_hat]

Blogger Rick67 February 05, 2017 10:54 PM  

I don't disagree. My ministry for 17 years has been with international students and scholars. I will neither confirm nor deny that over the last year or so, we are seeing more and more students and scholars from Nation in Central Asia participate in our activities. I love these people, have started learning some F***si, and form friendships with them. I know we have some serious issues with the government of Iran. It's just weird when you are friends with people from Nation, and see the trouble our government has with the government of said Nation.

Anonymous Anonymous February 05, 2017 11:47 PM  

All of the foregoing is
interesting, but a Judge in Tacoma WA has ruled that any federal judge can overrule any action of the Preident that the Judge deems unreasonable. To date, the Courts agree. So, what President Trump does or does not do, as a matter of law, is moot. ChecK with the Judge in Tacoma on how to handle Iran.

Anonymous Bukulu February 06, 2017 12:04 AM  

BBGKB @ 45,

1 Hectare (≈ 2.5 acres?) is tiny, though; less than half the size of the average African farm, and even smaller than densely-populated but much-longer-growing-season India. Seems like a pointless gesture to me.

Anonymous Gen. Kong February 06, 2017 12:44 AM  

Coolest tin-foil theory award of the month to CoolHand for his Trump as 13-dimensional Hookah-style Mahjong master. May it be so, from your keyboard to K-k-kek's ears.

I suspect Mountain Man is closer to the mark though.

Synp:
You are contradicting yourself. Anyone who knows anything about the region understands that on Syria the interests of Israel, Iran and Russia are aligned. Assad is vulnerable and non-threatening, and Israel would much rather have him stick around than have his regime replaced by ISIS. However, not being a real regional power, Israel has very little influence on the matter.

No I'm not. Israel has been supporting ISIS to topple Assad, along with Saud and the Banana Imperium. Whether this is driven by the typical and well-documented Jewish supremacism and genocidal exterminationalism towards Christians (ISIS's preferred victims) or Israel itself being attached to a chain which is yanked by the same globalist cabal we do not know for certain. Israel does not have the means to project much military power it's true, but in that region they alone have the nukes (probably well north of 300), plus all the chemical and bio-agents required to destroy a considerable section of the Ummah, though (as noted above) I expect these are really intended for places like Russia, Europe and the USA. What a friend we have in Judeo-Christ!

Blogger Elder Son February 06, 2017 1:26 AM  

ISIS/Israel - http://www.globalresearch.ca/search?q=ISIS+Israel&x=0&y=0

"We see ourselves together, fighting together, with our Muslim brothers," said the rabbi. "They are our natural allies." - http://voxday.blogspot.com/2017/01/jews-are-enemy-of-old-europe.html

Blogger synp February 06, 2017 1:39 AM  

Israel has been supporting ISIS to topple Assad

No, I think this gets the tin-foil award. The only ones who want to topple Assad in the region are the Turks. The Saudis and Qatari prefer their Jihad in a more relaxed, Muslim Brotherhood style like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Hamas in Gaza. Both Al-Qaeda and the ISIS are a threat to every government in the region in that they want to replace all governments with their Caliphate. While Obama and EU officials were denouncing the Russians for helping Assad, nobody in the region complained except Erdogan.

And again, power is not projected only through military. Power is the ability to influence. The US can influence Mexico by threatening a tariff. The US can influence the Palestinians by threatening to take the sign that says "embassy" from the building in Tel Aviv and attach it to the consulate in Jerusalem. When the only threat you can make is to flatten the other side's cities, you have no influence. What you have is insurance. It doesn't even let you stop your neighbor from the north from lobbing a few rockets now and then.

I have no personal knowledge about this, but I doubt Israel has any chemical and biological weapons. Those are a poor man's weapons, likely to damage your own people as much as the enemy. An Assad or a Saddam might use them.

Blogger JP February 06, 2017 1:42 AM  

America First means we shouldn't be getting the wag the dog treatment from our Middle East "allies". Precisely why isolationism is the only sane policy.

Blogger JP February 06, 2017 2:15 AM  

The Sunnis are allies of the globalists, Shia allies of nationalists. Wahhabis, al-qaeda, ISIS? All sunni. They're the ones that conveniently show up whenever there's a globalist goal to spread chaos/Islam, like in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Bosnia, Europe, etc.

The only Shia "terrorist" groups are ones like Hezbollah or the Houthi, which are generally defensive militias fighting back against sunni incursions.

Want to stop the spread of radical Islam? FFS, stop funding the aggressor and attacking their most hated rival. A nuclear-armed Iran might actually be a good counterbalance in an otherwise dangerously one-sided middle East.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash February 06, 2017 3:32 AM  

Iranians are NOT going to attack the US. They are Indo-Eurpoeana, the original Aryans. They are not that dumb.

What do you mean "us"?

Death to America is political theatre in Iran, like Congressmen swearing to uphold the Constitution. The country, post-Revolution, has defined itself against the 3rd world Satrapy the Roosevelt family had turned it into. Iraniana see thwmselves, with some justification, as one of the world's Great Civilizations, the heirs of Darius and Cyrus, who were reduced to a colony by the CIA and the US State dept.
They intend to climb back to Power status, and nukes are the proven way to stop the US intervening. They have no intention of using them, but they will not be enslaved again.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash February 06, 2017 4:02 AM  

We can't even remove Assad, an unpopular dictator with a miniscule army.
And big bad ol' Unkie Sam gonna just waltz through and take out Iran?

If Trump just holds back the younger generation is getting fed up with the mullahs and this time when the Persian Spring or Green Revolution hits, support the Students and Middle class.

Oh goodie, another color-coded Soros-managed "popular" revolution.
How's that working out in Ukraine, Georgia, Tunisia, Lybia, Algeria, and on and on. Iranians were right to suppress it and I think they should have done so more violently.

Blogger SteelPalm February 06, 2017 4:50 AM  

Since I only come across his articles here, I had forgotten how blitheringly fucking stupid The Saker is. It's the type of a-historical, provincial, Jew-obsessed rambling by someone that knows nothing about either Europe or the Middle East I would expect on TRS or TDS.

How did this drivel get published on an otherwise excellent site like Unz?

Why does Vox occasionally refer to it as anything remotely credible?

Look, I understand the arguments that Vox and others make that Iran chanting "Death to America!" is just saber-rattling.

At the same time, they also took a US Navy ship hostage, humiliated them, and got a few billion dollars for the exercise.

(I wonder if some of the posters above dismissing Iran as a threat would react so calmly and casually if say Israel had done this? After all, in the middle of a war Israel hit a US ship in 1967 that was aiding their enemy Egypt...not as egregious, and it's STILL brought up, 50 years later)

I like Vox's argument for staying out of the region entirely and letting it play itself out. Completely agree.

However, this requires further monitoring. (Which would be easier if the US intelligence wasn't handicapped by a bunch of inane leftist laws and bureaucrats)

And I hardly consider some rhetoric by the God Emperor to be a "mistake".

Anonymous MIG February 06, 2017 5:20 AM  

@94 Agree, this guy strikes me as very stupid and ignorant. I am very surprised that he is published by serious websites.

Blogger JaimeInTexas February 06, 2017 8:06 AM  

Read up on some history about Iran. Start at pre WW1.
I would not live in Iran but I would visit. I wpuld not visit Saidi Arabia even if it was for free.

Blogger SteelPalm February 06, 2017 8:48 AM  

Before the Ayatollah took over in 1979, Iran was the richest, smartest, most Westernized, advanced, and secular of all the Muslim Middle Eastern countries. Had possibly the best relations with both the US and Israel, too.

Nice place to visit back then.

That all changed very quickly, though.

Blogger VFM #7634 February 06, 2017 9:04 AM  

Iranians are NOT going to attack the US. They are Indo-Eurpoeana, the original Aryans. They are not that dumb.

@Snidely
At least they should tone down the Death to America crap now that we have an anti-globalist as President. Perhaps Russia can mediate between us and Iran.

Blogger VD February 06, 2017 9:12 AM  

Since I only come across his articles here, I had forgotten how blitheringly fucking stupid The Saker is. It's the type of a-historical, provincial, Jew-obsessed rambling by someone that knows nothing about either Europe or the Middle East I would expect on TRS or TDS.

The Saker regularly gets things right. He correctly called events in both Ukraine and Syria, much more accurately than almost any other commenter. You appear to be falling into the genetic fallacy here.

Many people dislike Jews, or Jewish influence, for entirely rational reasons. You don't have to agree with those reasons or approve of their dislike to see that. And, more importantly, that dislike does not make them stupid nor does it make their predictions reliably false.

Anonymous vfm #0202 February 06, 2017 10:46 AM  

Trump's wall is the soft answer. The hard answer? A hot fuel rod sticking out of the ground every 10 yards. Some shielded bulldozers will be required to clean up uninvited guests.

Blogger JP February 06, 2017 10:49 AM  

@Steelpalm Maybe because when that ship got blown up dozens of Americans got killed and hundreds wounded, while Congress reacted with, "Meh, no big deal." Wars have been started over far less.

Nobody died in the recent ship incident. Stop trying to make the world fight your fucking wars. If you really are the chosen people, you should do just fine on your own.

Blogger Phunctor February 06, 2017 10:50 AM  

"When there is no solution, there is no problem."
This is either deep or sophomoric, I can't tell. For approximately ever I have defined "problem" as "a situation which may have a solution".

Blogger SteelPalm February 06, 2017 10:58 AM  

@100

I've seen The Saker get plenty of things wrong in just the articles you've quoted, but I also don't know what he wrote in the past, or his predictions.

Truthfully, both Syria and Ukraine seemed quite obvious, and outside of leftist or neocon idiots who don't understand Europe at all, I can't imagine a serious right-wing thinker misreading either one.

@101

Did you even bother reading my whole comment, idiot?

I specifically stated that the US staying out of the Middle East is a good idea, but they should keep an eye on Iran in case their ambitions begin to extend beyond the region.

Before you stand up to "the chosen people", learn to fucking read first.

Anonymous Ominous Cowherd February 06, 2017 11:39 AM  

Cinco wrote:
when there is no solution, there is no problem.


So, the definition of problem is ``something that has a solution?''

Or did you mean that something that we cannot affect is something we needn't put effort into affecting? We might still have to put effort into preparing for fallout.

Anonymous One Deplorable DT February 06, 2017 11:46 AM  

@94 - I like Vox's argument for staying out of the region entirely and letting it play itself out. Completely agree.

This is only possible under two conditions.

1) The region remains non-nuclear except for Israel. And Israel continues to keep its mouth shut about its nuclear capabilities, holding their weapons in reserve for nothing less than the impending destruction of their nation state.

2) The west develops sufficient energy resources to be able to survive a complete loss of oil from the region. Keep in mind that oil is used primarily for transportation and for products used to grow food (both fertilizers and pesticides). So nuclear power plants, or solar/wind if you're green, are not substitutes.

If those two things were true we could safely monitor the middle east from afar and watch Muslims kill each other all year long.

But right now 2 is not true, and we are dangerously close to 1 no longer being true. And anyone who is serious about the US being less involved in the middle east long term should think long and hard about both issues.

Anonymous CoolHand February 06, 2017 1:20 PM  

Actually, number two could be true in a matter of weeks, if the situation demanded it.

Right now we have more oil ready to be pumped than anyone is willing to pull out of the ground, because the price is low overseas.

If the overseas oil stopped tomorrow, that oil that ain't being pumped right now would hit the market in a week, ten days at most.

Tight oil doesn't require months of work to restart pumping. You come back to the site and turn the pumps back on, easy peasy.

Nobody has been capping shale well heads because of the recent glut, they've just been keeping their product in the ground until the price point improves.

Another arab embargo (by whatever means or for whatever reason) would certainly do that.

The US could be self sufficient for motor fuel and fertilizer feed stock without much fuss.

It's fueling all that generating capacity that used to run on coal but now uses oil and natural gas where the cheese will start to bind up.

That's an issue that nuclear would fix, but one does not simply extract a nuclear power plant from one's ass and place it in operation overnight.

Blogger peter blandings February 06, 2017 1:34 PM  

@105 you are one deplorable moron. i saw your post @60 and couldn't believe it. you should be banned. NO neo-cons. vox is 100% right; stay the fuck out of it. if iran was a problem, bibi would have handled it by now, and if it becomes one in the future. a word should not have been spoken, we've got plenty of problems. this is pure neo-con bullshit. and where's the great sec/def? i'll tell you where he is, he's pounding the drum harder than anybody. if he was the strategic genius he's billed as he would have spoken to the GE before a mistake was made. mattis has to go now. and besides, if vlad's on your side, iran is handled even without isreal. why complicate the fuck out of everything? get back into bed with richard perle and STFU.

Blogger ben-david Singleton February 06, 2017 2:25 PM  

The main reason to attack Iran, besides revenge for everything since 1979, is not that the U.S. is within spitting distance of complete energy independent and the world's largest refined fuels exporter, is that it IS in our interest to remove 17+ mbbl/d of oil from the market place. The primary beneficiaries of an attack on Iran are the U.S., Russia, Saudi Arabia, non OPEC oil exporters and OPEC member nations who are not on the Persian Gulf, who will see global oil prices spike well north of $150 per barrel. For the oil producing nations including the U.S., once the President or Congress reinstates the ban on crude oil exports is a complete decoupling of OUR energy prices from those of the rest of the world. Think of it as another global tariff that is totally net positive for all domestic economic activity AND government revenue.

Blogger ben-david Singleton February 06, 2017 2:30 PM  

I would point out a military action against Iran would NOT if Mattis is smart be about invading Iran. It would be a Punitive Raid, similar to what we did against the Barbary Pirates an such. Almost exclusively an air campaign design to destroy their nuclear capability, degrade their military capabilities and to destroy their civil infrastructure in order to smash their nation but not their ability to seek retribution against their Sunni neighbors.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash February 06, 2017 2:48 PM  

ben-david Singleton wrote:The main reason to attack Iran, besides revenge for everything since 1979, is not that the U.S. is within spitting distance of complete energy independent and the world's largest refined fuels exporter, is that it IS in our interest to remove 17+ mbbl/d of oil from the market place.
How many people is the Jew ready to kill in order to make more money? How many Iranians? How many Americans?

Fuck you.

Also, what injury exactly do we have to revenge since 1979?. The time the Iranians shot down a US airliner?

Oh no, oops, that was us shooting down their airliner. Sorry.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash February 06, 2017 2:49 PM  

ben-david Singleton wrote:I would point out a military action against Iran would NOT if Mattis is smart be about invading Iran. It would be a Punitive Raid, similar to what we did against the Barbary Pirates an such. Almost exclusively an air campaign design to destroy their nuclear capability, degrade their military capabilities and to destroy their civil infrastructure in order to smash their nation but not their ability to seek retribution against their Sunni neighbors.
Bloodthirsty little fuck, aren't you?

Blogger ben-david Singleton February 06, 2017 2:56 PM  

@CoolHand is mistaken. Saudi Arabia exports 8.5 mbbl/day from its oil and natural gas terminal at Yanbu and my bad they have so far boosted transshipment on the East-West pipeline to 7 mbbl/d and can increase that to 8.5 mbbl/d. http://www.arabianbusiness.com/saudi-aramco-expand-capacity-of-east-west-pipeline-by-end-2018-633580.html

Blogger Avalanche February 06, 2017 3:07 PM  

@17 "The justification for their continued rule is Death to the Great Satan. Not a lot to build on there."

Except, to judge from what small news gets out of there, their version of Millennials and Gen Z LIKE America; don't wish death to America (and aren't that fond of their religious rulers..

Blogger Avalanche February 06, 2017 3:08 PM  

@19 " the Trump supporters will be too demoralized to fight back."

I will NEVER be to tried to lift banners and weapons for the GOd Emperor!!

Blogger Avalanche February 06, 2017 3:09 PM  

oops: too tired...

Blogger peter blandings February 06, 2017 3:27 PM  

@111 good post. stay on him. the perles are swine.

Blogger Avalanche February 06, 2017 3:53 PM  

@100 "A hot fuel rod sticking out of the ground every 10 yards."

We can pick 'em up cheap from Japan.

Anonymous One Deplorable DT February 06, 2017 5:55 PM  

@106 - Actually, number two could be true in a matter of weeks, if the situation demanded it.

That depends entirely on the "situation." The globe could weather a regional cut in production from the middle east. Or the total loss of production from any one of the states except Saudi Arabia.

A total loss of Saudi oil would be very harmful, though not necessarily a globe destabilizing event.

But if mid east oil were lost completely due to a nuclear exchange? The remaining oil producers cannot step up production fast enough to fill that gap. It wouldn't just be a matter of prices skyrocketing or of the US keeping all domestically produced oil at home. You're talking about economic collapse and a real risk of starvation across much of the globe while the remaining oil producing states desperately try to drill entirely new fields.

I don't want the US to have anything to do with the middle east. If it were possible: send Muslims home, instate a permanent travel/immigration ban, and tell the mid east to solve their own damn problems.

But it seems like many of the Ilk are forgetting the very real reasons why the US is tangled up in the middle east. It's not "Jooos!" or conspiracies or aliens. The global economy...the global food supply...depends on mid east oil flowing through the Persian Gulf.

With the cold war over a total loss of mid east oil is a hyperbolic scenario...right up until Iran and Saudi Arabia have nukes. Then it's a very real scenario.

It's fueling all that generating capacity that used to run on coal but now uses oil and natural gas where the cheese will start to bind up.

According to the DOE only 1% of US electricity comes from oil. Where we have replaced coal we've used natural gas, and we have more than enough natural gas production at home. So we're actually OK as far as electricity goes.

Anonymous One Deplorable DT February 06, 2017 6:29 PM  

@107 - You want to stick your head in the sand and believe Iran...or Saudi Arabia for that matter...is run by rational actors, you go right ahead. I'm not willing to risk a US city or global stability on that bet. Apparently neither is Trump.

The only smart thing you said was this: and besides, if vlad's on your side, iran is handled even without isreal.

If there's still some time until Iran has the bomb then sanction the shit out of them. Simultaneously talk to Putin and remind him of the nightmare scenarios for the US and Russia should Iran develop a nuclear arsenal. Offer to work with him on stuff he wants, then play good cop / bad cop with Russia until Iran caves.

But if they are close, then take out their facilities. Period. Proliferation is not automatically "going to happen" because uranium enrichment requires a lot of equipment and a lot of space. Everything about a nuke is easy except the materials. Knock that out and you set a rogue state back a decade minimum.

If they already have nuclear weapons then you have to force them to act rationally, which means MAD. You can call me a neocon all you want but if the US has to enforce a MAD doctrine against Iran then we are never getting out of the web of the middle east. Not enforcing one means Iran is free to dream up all sorts of scenarios where they can do some stupid shit 'for the glory of Allah!'

And we haven't even gotten to the issue of the Saudis acquiring their own nukes in response. You know them, right? They're the home country of the 9/11 terrorists, our "ally."

@110 - How many people is the Jew ready to kill in order to make more money? How many Iranians? How many Americans?

This isn't even chess Snidely. This is checkers. If Iran gets nukes then so do the Saudis and sooner or later there's a mushroom cloud in the world.

If it's over a US city, or a small exchange between two mid east actors, then full-blown-George-W-won't-someone-think-of-the-children neocon foreign policy will rule America, Republican or Democrat, until long after the Dread Ilk are dead and buried.

If it's over Israel you can kiss mid east oil goodbye. Queue global collapse.

The only possible "good" outcome is if Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Israel end up in a small arms race and realize that they're in a MAD Mexican standoff. I would even be OK with this...hell, it would be funny...if it wasn't for the Muslim propensity to randomly blow shit up for 72 virgins.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash February 06, 2017 7:23 PM  

One Deplorable DT wrote:You want to stick your head in the sand and believe Iran...or Saudi Arabia for that matter...is run by rational actors, you go right ahead. I'm not willing to risk a US city or global stability on that bet. Apparently neither is Trump.
You want to stick your head up McCain's ass and believe that despite all evidence and all recent history that Iran...or Saudi Arabia for that matter...is run by irrational actors, you go right ahead. I'm not willing to risk a US city or global stability on that bet.

Blogger peter blandings February 06, 2017 7:39 PM  

@119 iran has been saying for decades that they are going to destroy israel. do you think the israelis have forgotten about that threat? given that mossad has more intel in their fucking broom closet than we have in all 17 of our agencies combined, if there was a problem with iran they would cover it instantly. do you remember the osirik nuclear reactor in iraq? israel considered the completion of that reactor to be a threat. they didn't build no fuckin' coalition, they didn't go to no UN bullshit, they climbed into their jets and they fuckin' popped it. threat neutralized. when iran gets problematic you'll see a headline on drudge, "massive explosion in iran". if you'd been paying any attention you would have noticed there are no iranian suicide bombers, there are no iranian hijackers. if you were capable of deductive reasoning, which you're not, you would know that the mullahs aren't waiting for their 72 virgins; they're having them now, they're hedging their bet. they don't want to die. and vlad is NOT going to let them get out of hand. you're an hysterical old woman, you're a neo-con and you're stupid. eat this: weapons of mass destruction in iraq. six thousand american soldiers are dead, another 50,000 maimed for life, three trillon dollars is down the drain and counting, all because of the fucking neo-cons and their jewish suicidal tendencies. although you'll notice they never do any of the actual fighting and dying. just like you. if you think iran is a problem, then get on a fucking plane and go do something about it you fucking neo-con chicken hawk piece of shit. show me a purple heart or a bronze star or STFU.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash February 06, 2017 7:53 PM  

what he said

Anonymous Ominous Cowherd February 06, 2017 8:00 PM  

peter blandings wrote:... the mullahs aren't waiting for their 72 virgins; they're having them now, they're hedging their bet ...

There were Palestinian suicide bombers, but I noticed that Arafat never blew himself up. The mullahs are using proxy suicide bombers rather than identifiable Iranians? That just means that they see no gain to being identified as suicide bombers. My take is that the Palestinians used their own suicide bombers because they don't have an army and navy and no proxies, while the Iranians use proxy suicide bombers but none of their own, because they do have an army and navy, sort of. There is more prestige in blowing things up with a missile than with a suicide vest, I suppose.

The short of it is that what we have seen of the mad mullahs of Iran does not convince me they are either peaceable or sane.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash February 06, 2017 8:15 PM  

Ominous Cowherd wrote:The mullahs are using proxy suicide bombers rather than identifiable Iranians?
Your take is wrong.
Persians are not Arabs. They just aren't. I've lived with Persians. They are calculating, ruthless SOBs who play their cards very close to their vests. They are NOT irrationally violent, out of control, inferiority-complex-driven boy fuckers. They are not Arabs.

And frankly, you're well beyond the range of reason at this point. You have yet to provide a single valid reason to kill millions of Iranians and thousands of Americans except "they scare me."

Are you sure you're not an Arab?

Blogger Snidely Whiplash February 06, 2017 8:19 PM  

No, they are not particularly peaceable. They are, after all, our distant cousins. But they are sane.

And at what point does the irony of demanding that another nation demonstrate its peaceableness lest you kill them all intrude into your consciousness.

I mean, you are literally unhinged here. No fact deters, no counter argument is even contemplated. Just "KILL KILL KILL KILLL!

Blogger peter blandings February 06, 2017 8:30 PM  

@122 i think that's the best compliment i ever got. thanks.

Blogger ben-david Singleton February 06, 2017 9:32 PM  

@110 Snidely Whiplash, unlike some dumb shit Canadians who have no business telling other people how to run their countries I put MY ass on the line and actually served my country.

Unlike Canada we believe in revenge for those who kill our people. As for the rest neither I nor most Americans give a fuck about the rest of the world so if we can make a few dollars getting our revenge then so be in your antisemitic Canadian ass hat. Hell if we can get our enemies to kill each other all the better.
As for justification for doing unto Iran:
http://www.history.com/topics/iran-hostage-crisis

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/13/world/meast/beirut-marine-barracks-bombing-fast-facts/

http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/capitol-hill/2015/07/14/iran-linked-to-deaths-of-500-us-troops-in-iraq-afghanistan/30131097/

And maybe a Canadian ass hat can read and learn something. I for one would have figured that even a Canadian would have realized that most Americans do not behave by and large in a manner similar to libtard fascists and Canadians.
The Jacksonian Tradition. And American Foreign Policy. Walter Russell Mead
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-5-JeCa2Z7hZmU2ZTg0OTktYTRlNC00NzA2LThlOWItYzg5ODU4NTViYTE0/view?ddrp=1&hl=en&pli=1#

The Jacksonian Revolt
American Populism and the Liberal Order
By Walter Russell Mead
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2017-01-20/jacksonian-revolt

Blogger peter blandings February 06, 2017 10:02 PM  

@125 great posts. it's very refreshing to see someone who has some actual knowledge. not one in a thousand commenters here (or anywhere in the u.s.) would know that iran is persia or that iraq is mesapotamia, and that persians are completely different from arabs. oh, and persian women can be pretty hot, as opposed to arab females who are...less so. you should post regularly on this blog. maybe you do, i don't get into the comments that much. anyway, good job.
And at what point does the irony of demanding that another nation demonstrate its peaceableness lest you kill them all intrude into your consciousness.
i wish i'd written that. a beautiful sentence.

Blogger peter blandings February 06, 2017 10:22 PM  

@127 neither I nor most Americans give a fuck about the rest of the world

then why do they keep electing assholes who feel it's necessary to intervene into every shithole dispute on the planet. the fact that you were in the military puts us all in a very difficult position. it shuts down the debate and forces the mantra, we support our troops, we support our troops. if we really supported them we wouldn't ask them to risk their lives in situations that have nothing whatsoever to do with u.s. national security interests. i hate like hell to say this but it has to be said if this cycle of wasted men is ever to be broken: you didn't serve your country, you served some peacock politician who wanted to prove what a tough guy he is, using your blood of course, rather than his own. apart from that i'm not going to tear into your reasoning like i ordinarily would. your intentions were honorable and worthy, but the politicians are venal and disgraceful, as are the american people at large for not paying attention to what the hell we are doing. and oh, the time to hit iran was 1979. it's a tad late now. as to the behavior of most americans, by and large, consider that 62 million of them, fully HALF, voted for a criminally insane, warmongering dike for president. i wouldn't bestow any decency on them. i wish you luck.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash February 06, 2017 10:43 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash February 06, 2017 10:57 PM  

ben-david Singleton wrote:unlike some dumb shit Canadians who have no business telling other people how to run their countries I put MY ass on the line and actually served my country.
No, Jew-boy, you're not an American. You're a Jew.

If you want to protect Israel from the overwhelming Persian menace, go to Israel and enlist. America is not Israel's servant. America is not Israel's Jannisary. America is not Israel's slave. America is not Israel's golem, where you just have to have the rabbi put words in our mouth and we will do you bidding. We have no particular animus against Persians, no more than against Jews, anyway.

ben-david Singleton wrote:As for the rest neither I nor most Americans give a fuck about the rest of the world so (kill them and take the money)

HAHAHAHAHAHASBARAHAHA
Then why the FUCK do you insist we go KILL KILL KILL everyone who presents the least scintilla of threat to Israel's regional ambitions? Why the FUCK would any American care about a nation on the other side ofthe world that is utterly incapable of doing us significant injury. Why the FUCK to you lie to me, and to yourself about it?
You care, You care way too much.

Honest, you're coming across like a burned-out meth head standing on a street corner in his wife's underwear, screaming about Lemurians.

Ever notice the similarity of Jews and Arabs?

Anonymous One Deplorable DT February 06, 2017 11:59 PM  

@120 - You want to stick your head up McCain's ass and believe that despite all evidence and all recent history that Iran...or Saudi Arabia for that matter...is run by irrational actors, you go right ahead.

You won't trust Muslim refugees who, at worse, can rape and kill your neighbor. But you WILL trust Iranian Mullahs who have been preaching death to Israel and death to America for decades with a nuclear bomb?

I have the impression that I'm not speaking to a rational actor.

@121 - given that mossad has more intel in their fucking broom closet than we have in all 17 of our agencies combined, if there was a problem with iran they would cover it instantly.

Have you even seen a map of the middle east?

They would have to cross Syria, Jordan, or Saudi Arabia, and then Iraq, to get to Iran. Without stealth aircraft. And they would have to operate refueling tankers at extended range over hostile airspace. What the hell makes you think they can do that with Russian, US, and modernized US built Saudi radars covering the area? What makes you think they won't suffer losses? I would trust a Raptor or B-2 to evade Iranian SAMs and nail its target. An F-16? Eh...not nearly as much.

They will soon have combat ready F-35s, but the logistics are still a nightmare for them.

do you remember the osirik nuclear reactor in iraq?

The one I specifically mentioned? Back in 1981? When you could fool Saudi air defenses by using Jordanian radio signals?

You think that plan is going to work today?

if you'd been paying any attention you would have noticed there are no iranian suicide bombers, there are no iranian hijackers.

Do your homework.

if you were capable of deductive reasoning, which you're not, you would know that the mullahs aren't waiting for their 72 virgins;

Don't listen to that illegal immigrant when he says whitey should die and the southwest should be Aztlan. He won't hurt you. He already has his welfare!

I take Iran at its word, just like I take La Raza or BLM at their word. If they...any of them...don't mean what they say and don't want their words used as a pretext for violence, then maybe they should start speaking and acting like rational human beings.

And I'm sorry, but the nations of the world are not "eeequal." Iran has no right to nuclear weapons. The victors of World War II set the rules because as the victors they had the right to set the rules. And it's a damn shame that they didn't stick together and hold the club to five. And that includes forbidding Israel's clandestine program before it bore fruit.

eat this: weapons of mass destruction in iraq.

You've taken away the wrong lessons from this. Iraq did not have nukes in Gulf War I because Israel bombed their reactor. Gulf War I would have been a drastically different and more dangerous scenario with a nuclear armed Iraq.

@124 - You have yet to provide a single valid reason to kill millions of Iranians and thousands of Americans except "they scare me."

Nice straw man. Unless you can show that an airstrike on a UE facility will likely involve an invasion and full scale war.

@131 - If you want to protect Israel from the overwhelming Persian menace, go to Israel and enlist.

More straw men. You can completely remove Israel from the equation and a nuclear armed Iran is still a very dangerous thing.

It's no matter. Trump sees clearly on this issue. He is the one who will weigh the risks and make the hard decisions. I truly hope that he can enlist Russia's help and pressure Iran to give up this nonsense through sanctions. For everyone, including the people in Iran.

Blogger SteelPalm February 07, 2017 1:07 AM  

Okay, regardless of what one thinks of the situation, if your analysis of US-Iranian relations has you mentioning Israel/Jews way more than either US or Iran, chances are it's stupid and misguided.

Also, Saudi Arabia is not the only major Muslim Middle Eastern country scared shitless by Iran and trying to develop their own nukes.

So is Egypt.

And while on a personal level I like Iranians a hell of a lot more than I do Saudis or Egyptians, that's irrelevant to the analysis, too.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash February 07, 2017 1:41 AM  

@one deplorable DT.
For the $4BB that was recently released by the US Government-Banking cartel, they could have a nuke now, if they wanted so badly to commit suicide.

WTF is wrong with you? Do you have to imagine killing people to get an erection?

Blogger Snidely Whiplash February 07, 2017 2:51 AM  

SteelPalm wrote:Okay, regardless of what one thinks of the situation, if your analysis of US-Iranian relations has you mentioning Israel/Jews way more than either US or Iran, chances are it's stupid and misguided.
When somebody is as clearly deranged as this pair, obviously emotionally invested beyond reason, beyond caution, beyond contact with reality, and then they wave their circumcision scar in my face as an exclamation point, I'm allowed to comment on it. I'm allowed to postulate that it is no longer a rational issue, balancing competing dangers, but rather is has become one of identity for them.
When somebody who has slipped the surly bounds of rational thought accuses the party he HATES HATES HATES with an pre-rational white-hot hatred, of irrationality, perhaps it's pertinent to reference the presumptive source of that pre-rational hatred.

You will fail to note, I am sure, the ethnicity of every single unhinged "Nuke them all, they're bloodthirsty maniacs" ranter on this forum.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash February 07, 2017 2:54 AM  

"And, isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony anyway Arthur? I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good and crazy, oooh, oooh, oooh, the sky is the limit. " --The Tick

Blogger #issues February 07, 2017 5:10 AM  

The reason trump is becoming boys with Russia is to isolate Iran. And Iran in isolation either uses its coolest bombs or surrenders to its enemies. I see this as a bet that the Iranians don't have IT yet.

Blogger peter blandings February 07, 2017 5:40 AM  

Have you even seen a map of the middle east?

no, i never have. where's that at? you mean like michigan? or ohio?

Gulf War I would have been a drastically different and more dangerous scenario with a nuclear armed Iraq.

really? ya think? so you mean like if things had been different, things would have been different? if you're gonna use woulda coulda arguments to make your case, you shouldn't be here. you should be on the huffington post trading comments with the other children. this isn't worth another second.

Anonymous One Deplorable DT February 07, 2017 8:35 AM  

@134 - For the $4BB that was recently released by the US Government-Banking cartel, they could have a nuke now, if they wanted so badly to commit suicide.

I see you subscribe to the Hollywood view of nuclear weapons. Let's count the movies were some airhead actor recited the line "Son, for $X dollars they could just BUY a nuke on the black market."

Yeah. That's why Iran has invested so much time, money, and energy into centrifuges, under sanctions and at the risk of losing them in an airstrike. Because you can pick up a nuke on Silk Road.

You can trace a bomb core, or the fallout from one, to the reactor that produced it. One very good indication that you're about to get nuked off the planet is to receive a phone call from the American president that starts with: "You son of a bitch! The bomb those Muslim terrorists used to destroy New York came from YOUR military!" That's why nation states exchange tech and not bomb cores.

It's probably also why Israel never mentions their arsenal, and actually bowed to American will the one time they were ready to use it.

@135 - When somebody is as clearly deranged as this pair,

Says the guy whose arguments are "Jooos!", "John McCain's ass", and random personal insults.

@138 - no, i never have. where's that at? you mean like michigan? or ohio?

Seeing as you suggested a logistically impossible air strike for Israel's air force I assumed you were clueless regarding the region.

In retrospect, it's just as likely that you have seen a map of the middle east and are clueless regarding what it takes to actually send fighter bombers across nearly 2,000 miles of hostile air space to successfully destroy a hardened target.

@138 - if you're gonna use woulda coulda arguments to make your case, you shouldn't be here.

It was an attempt to illustrate some of the dangers of a hostile middle eastern government possessing nukes. Flew right over your head. Disappointing....

Blogger ben-david Singleton February 07, 2017 5:09 PM  

@131 Snidely Whiplash you antisemitic ass hat you have those EVIL JEEWWSS on your brain. At no point did I mention Israel, because I am NOT an Israeli and defending THEIR nation is THEIR responsibility you racist ass hat. If it was Canadians who were murdering my fellow citizens I would be suggest bombing Canada back into the stone age as well. It seems you are incapable of following web links when provided or actually learning anything. But I am not surprised about that when dealing with someone who is so bent on hating people who have done nothing to him. i simple focus on those how have declared my Country the Great Satan and committed numerous acts of war and terrorism against it. But I guess that is to much for your two brain cells to handle.

Blogger ben-david Singleton February 07, 2017 5:13 PM  

@128 peter blandings sorry if I assume that such basic knowledge on behalf of anyone who can form a coherent sentence.
But all of that should be a given to anyone who know the history of the region. And yes sucks to be Iranian since they do not really even have a say in how their country runs. But that is not OUR problem the behavior of their government and their repeated acts of war and terrorism against the U.S. are.

Blogger ben-david Singleton February 07, 2017 5:19 PM  

@133 SteelPalm you notices that I somehow became a Jewboy instead of an American Christian because of my name and my ancestors by our resident Godwin's Law poster boy even through I did not once refer to Israel or Jews in any way shape or form because of my first name. I do believe we have a progressive troll in our midst, Especially considering his profile, he is SO touchie feelie in his life choices. I think he needs to go back to doing street art.

Blogger ben-david Singleton February 07, 2017 5:21 PM  

@135 Snidely Whiplash the only person spewing irrational hate is the street artist wannabee.

Blogger peter blandings February 07, 2017 5:43 PM  

@139 reading comprehension on your part. take another look at my posts. nowhere did i suggest an israeli airstrike against iran. i referenced osirik only as an illustration that israel could get the job done. every situation will be different and require different tactics. i don't know what tactics they will use to neutralize iran IF iran becomes a problem, i only know that they will definitely come up with a solution. they have been demonstrating that for 68 years. they were attacked by seven arab countries on the very first day of their existence as a nation and it has not let up during the entirety of that existence. and yet, they are still here. you completely miss subtlety and implication. you can only perceive ABC concrete statements and you always interpret them literally when everyone else sees the intended sarcasm or misdirective. why am i still responding?

@141 assuming basic knowledge in the u.s. is always a mistake. nowhere on earth or in history has ignorance flourished so energetically as it has in america. the only act of war i'm aware of that iran has committed against the u.s. occurred in 1979 when they took our embassy personnel hostage in tehran. since then there has only been talk, talk, talk. the time for retaliation was over 30 years ago, it is a dead issue now. i don't consider iran a threat for all the reasons you yourself have enumerated. neither do i consider n. korea a threat, and certainly not russia, who is our natural ally and in whose country the last stand of western civilization will occur. there are only two threats on the earth today: the u.s. itself by suicide, which is already occurring apace, and CHINA. and china will prevail. they have changed everything and cannot be stopped. the MAD principle does not apply to them because they simply don't care about losing hundreds of millions of people. there is no other deterrent. bye bye.

Blogger SteelPalm February 07, 2017 6:50 PM  

@133 SteelPalm you notices that I somehow became a Jewboy instead of an American Christian because of my name and my ancestors by our resident Godwin's Law poster boy even through I did not once refer to Israel or Jews in any way shape or form because of my first name.

Oh, it's to be expected nowadays. It's downright comical how many whites and even white Christians I've seen referred to as "Jews" over the past year.

Hell, I've even seen blonde-haired, blue-eyed white Germans that would have once been on posters proclaiming Aryan superiority being called "Jews". Is it so hard to accept that while there many leftist jewish elite, the majority of leftist elite are nevertheless white?

At this point, I simply find it funny.

Also, I like One Deplorable DT's posts. A reasonable perspective, and he clearly knows what he is writing about.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash February 07, 2017 9:02 PM  

@Dickhat ben David,
A link is not an argument. A link is in fact an admission that you yourself do not understand the argument well enough to articulate it.
See the rules of the blog. Basically you're doing it wrong.
Oh, and VFM #4001, bitch.

I was particularly amused by this:
But I am not surprised about that when dealing with someone who is so bent on hating people who have done nothing to him.
So, what the fuch have the Persian people ever done to you?
"I don't hate them, I just want them all to starve while dying of radiation poisoning. It's not personal."

Face it, you're completely unhinged, irrational, and filled with vile utter hatred.
Own it, pussy.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash February 07, 2017 9:03 PM  

Also, I like One Deplorable DT's posts. A reasonable perspective, and he clearly knows what he is writing about.

AKA, "He agrees with me."

Blogger SteelPalm February 07, 2017 9:41 PM  

@147

AKA, "He agrees with me."

Actually, we disagree, if you bothered reading more carefully. One Deplorable DT is far more in favor of intervention than I am.

Nevertheless, he brings up relevant points, and his position is a respectable one.

This is in contrast to your views, which are closer to mine, but are supported by utterly inane bullshit, like accusing others of getting a hard-on at the prospect of killing Iranians. (Projection?)

Blogger DonReynolds February 07, 2017 11:20 PM  

I do not believe there is going to be a US war with Iran any more than the US is going to get into a war with China.
Why?
We no longer have the military establishment to conduct either such war.
In 1990, the US put an army of 500,000 people in the Saudi desert for the first Gulf War. Eleven years later, there was no such army available for the invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq. After eight years of Obama downsizing, it would be a major effort to field an army HALF the size used to liberate Kuwait. Same problem as always, only a fraction of the National Guard and Reserve units are deployable and combat ready and up to strength and fully equipped. After 15 years of combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq (and elsewhere) we have burned through a great deal of inventory with no opportunity for serious maintenance or upgrade or improved models. Everyone has tried to fight the war on the cheap and now we are running out of shoestrings....just when the NeoCons want to tear open a new war, somewhere.
I believe this is posturing to keep the Israelis from going off on their own. Something they are increasingly tempted to do with the US encouraging Iran with vast resources for their nuclear weapons program. I certainly do not blame them but I am not sure they will stick with the American plan for long if Iran is not prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons capable of hitting Israel.
For the Americans, Iran is annoying. For Israel, it may be a matter of survival.

Blogger Chris February 07, 2017 11:49 PM  

Vox writes: "he's shut down the neocons on Russia, so he's giving them their head on Iran." Vox, I know you are speculating here, but do you have any basis for this? Names or links perhaps?

Blogger ben-david Singleton February 09, 2017 6:42 AM  

@144 peter blandings
You are mistaken in regards to China, that is why they are so terrified of the God Emperor. They are wholly dependent on the global free trade system. China is also one reason an attack against Iran IS on the table. Removing those 17 mbbl/d of crude from the system in conjunction with the destruction of the global free trade system is an economic attack from which they cannot recover. Theoretically it is possible for them to recover from the destruction of the global free trade system alone, even if it is highly unlikely. In all honesty the only three major powers who can deal with the destruction of the global free trade system are the U.S., since we never used it economically (it was the worlds biggest bribe to win the cold war), Russia and India.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts