AuthorTopic: WW3??  (Read 85217 times)

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 38020
    • View Profile
Re: WW3??
« Reply #705 on: June 22, 2019, 02:09:07 AM »

The Persians have been around for a long time. They are not going to accept foreign rule any time soon.

JOW

They had the Shah from 1941 to 1979.

RE

Yes, I get your point, but the Shah was actually Persian, even if he did eventually became a corrupt puppet.

The Empire always installs a Native Puppet.  The Brits learned way back you don't put a White Guy in charge, you get rebellions immediately.  A local gives the veneer of self-rule.

RE
Save As Many As You Can

Offline Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 15796
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Re: WW3??
« Reply #706 on: June 22, 2019, 02:36:29 AM »

The Persians have been around for a long time. They are not going to accept foreign rule any time soon.

JOW

They had the Shah from 1941 to 1979.

RE

Yes, I get your point, but the Shah was actually Persian, even if he did eventually became a corrupt puppet.
There was a lot of English and US interference, particularly from 1950's on wards, which eventually resulted in a radical revolution in 79.... Sounds familiar. Just middle East not Central or South America.
Pretty sure the last 40 years of US animosity and blatant support for enemies (Saddam Hussein, remember him?) has resulted in the Persians being less than looking forward to the next puppet dictator.
Really dont know how anyone can think that after being shit on for 40 years someone would turn around, bow down and welcome the same arsehole as their new overlord without a pretty big fight..

What ever happened to no foreign entanglements.....?

This is all about oil, just like every other US war in the last 50 years. Riding down the Seneca cliff....

JOW

What ever happened to no foreign entanglements? The Dulles Brothers. The Persians have a history more ancient than Rome, and while they have put their country close to our bases, I do not believe an invasion would be Iraq 2.0. Trump is getting advice from the worst people in the history of American governance, and is actively flirting with a war that will ignite the Middle East, all to secure re-election.

Whether it is "all about oil" may well be so, but it sure as hell is about Israel. Netanyahu and the Zionist Apartheid State have been trying to get their huge, stupid thug friend to beat up Iran for years.
"It is difficult to write a paradiso when all the superficial indications are that you ought to write an apocalypse." -Ezra Pound

Offline Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 15796
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Re: WW3??
« Reply #707 on: June 22, 2019, 02:38:11 AM »
Now it would seem that Merika is the private army of Bibbi, fighting his wars for him, Master-Blaster style : A small dick manipulating a big dumb bully to do his bidding.
JOW

Exactly. Perfect analogy.
"It is difficult to write a paradiso when all the superficial indications are that you ought to write an apocalypse." -Ezra Pound

Offline Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 15796
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Re: Donald Trump Owns This Iran Crisis
« Reply #708 on: June 22, 2019, 02:45:14 AM »
"Unfortunately, Iran will provoke again, and next time the U.S. warmongers may win the argument"


The FSoA did the provoking by flying a drone in Iranian airspace.

RE

And they never will because the FSoA does not recognize Iranian airspace claims, and uses its own definitions. Thus conflict is guaranteed.
"It is difficult to write a paradiso when all the superficial indications are that you ought to write an apocalypse." -Ezra Pound

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 38020
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump Owns This Iran Crisis
« Reply #709 on: June 22, 2019, 04:49:40 AM »
"Unfortunately, Iran will provoke again, and next time the U.S. warmongers may win the argument"


The FSoA did the provoking by flying a drone in Iranian airspace.

RE

And they never will because the FSoA does not recognize Iranian airspace claims, and uses its own definitions. Thus conflict is guaranteed.

They never will what?

RE
Save As Many As You Can

Offline John of Wallan

  • Waitstaff
  • ***
  • Posts: 257
    • View Profile
Re: WW3??
« Reply #710 on: June 22, 2019, 06:52:34 PM »
Now it would seem that Merika is the private army of Bibbi, fighting his wars for him, Master-Blaster style : A small dick manipulating a big dumb bully to do his bidding.
JOW

Exactly. Perfect analogy.

Bibi-Trump/ Master-Blaster runs oil town.
The rest of us just have to respect their authoritah...


JOW




Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 38020
    • View Profile
🚀 Saudi Airport Struck by Deadly Attack
« Reply #711 on: June 23, 2019, 04:56:18 PM »
The Proxy War is now on in full force.

RE

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/23/world/middleeast/saudi-airport-attacked.html

Saudi Airport Struck by Deadly Attack


The sign at the airport in Abha, Saudi Arabia, shown earlier this month.Credit Fayez Nureldine/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

By The Associated Press

    June 23, 2019

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — One person was killed and seven others were wounded on Sunday in an attack by Iranian-allied Yemeni rebels on a Saudi airport, Saudi Arabia said. The strike came as the American secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, traveled to the country for talks on Iran.

Regional tensions have flared in recent days. The United States abruptly called off a military strike against Iran last week in response to the shooting down of an unmanned American surveillance drone.

The Trump administration has vowed to combine a “maximum pressure” campaign of economic sanctions with a buildup of American forces in the region. A new set of sanctions on Iran is expected to be announced on Monday.

Sunday’s attack by the Yemeni rebels, known as Houthis, targeted the Saudi airport in Abha. Saudi Arabia has been at war with the Houthis in Yemen for more than four years.
Sign up for The Interpreter

Subscribe for original insights, commentary and discussions on the major news stories of the week, from columnists Max Fisher and Amanda Taub.

A Houthi spokesman, Yahia al-Sarie, said earlier Sunday that the rebels had launched drones against Saudi airports in the southern cities of Abha and Jizan.

Saudi Arabia’s military spokesman, Col. Turki al-Maliki, did not say what type of weapon was used in the attack late Sunday. The Saudi Press Agency reported that a Syrian resident of Saudi Arabia had been killed, but did not identify the nationalities of those wounded.

It was the second Houthi attack on Abha’s airport in less than two weeks. The Houthis launched a cruise missile at the airport on June 12, wounding 26 people. The Iranian-backed Houthis also claimed responsibility for bomb-laden drone strikes against a Saudi oil pipeline in recent weeks.

Mr. Pompeo was traveling to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates for talks on Iran. His meeting in Saudi Arabia will be in the Red Sea city of Jidda, about 315 miles north of the Saudi airport that was struck.

Speaking to reporters before flying out, he said he would be talking to the two United States allies “about how to make sure that we are all strategically aligned” and how to build a global coalition to “push back against the world’s largest state sponsor of terror.”
Save As Many As You Can

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 38020
    • View Profile
🚀 Where was the U.S. drone when Iran shot it down?
« Reply #712 on: June 24, 2019, 02:18:05 AM »
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/UoAnRqSBtQ4" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/UoAnRqSBtQ4</a>
Save As Many As You Can

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 38020
    • View Profile
🚀 What Trump Really Just Told the Iranians: He’s Out of Ideas.
« Reply #713 on: June 28, 2019, 12:28:36 AM »
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/06/27/donald-trump-iran-sanctions-227243

What Trump Really Just Told the Iranians: He’s Out of Ideas.

The administration’s new Iran sanctions are symbolic. But that’s not the problem—it’s the message they’re sending.

By JARRETT BLANC
June 27, 2019

Jarrett Blanc is a senior fellow in the Geoeconomics and Strategy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He was previously the State Department lead for the implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on Iran’s nuclear program.


AP Photo/Alex Brandon

The Trump administration’s announcement this week of plans to impose new sanctions targeting Iranian leaders and organizations—including the Supreme Leader and his office, military commanders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Foreign Minister Javad Zarif—will have little practical effect, according to sanctions experts. Senior Iranian officials and their organizations are very unlikely to use international financial institutions or hold substantial assets abroad, and those are the major pathways through which the United States exerts coercive economic pressure. In other words, the new sanctions are more symbolic than effective.

This is not a bad thing. Symbolism is useful in international affairs, especially between adversarial countries like Iran and the United States, which lack formal diplomatic relations and need to find other ways to communicate. Intermediaries can be one option, symbolic measures another.

The problem with these new sanctions is not that they are symbolic, but that the messages they convey to Iran and the rest of the world are foolish and dangerous, and will fail to advance U.S. interests.

Here are three messages the Trump administration sent to Iran this week:

First, targeting the Supreme Leader and his office sends a message that Trump is pursuing regime change. “Supreme Leader” is a somewhat misleading title. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is very powerful but must still balance competing political currents in Iran. (Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the Reagan-era regime founder Trump mistakenly named in announcing the sanctions, was more powerful but also not all-powerful, and the cultural embarrassment of mixing up two similar names pales compared with the embarrassment of this poorly executed power politics.) Still, Khamenei is both the most important and most symbolic part of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s leadership, the “Vali-ye faqih,” or “guardian jurist,” on whom the regime’s Islamic ideology rests.

Trump has said he is not seeking regime change in Iran, perhaps intuiting that if Tehran interprets his admitted belligerence through this maximalist lens, the Iranians will have little incentive to give him the pageant-like summit meetings he so nakedly craves. His policy, though, is hard to understand as anything but an effort at regime change. Trump has tried and failed to settle those fears with rhetorical flourishes rather than changes in policy. Adding more aggressive attacks on the face of the Iranian regime will not help.

Second, the new sanctions appear to confirm widely held Iranian beliefs that the United States is out of effective economic measures and is scraping for new tools. With Iranian oil sales down to 300,000 barrels per day (from 2.5 million before sanctions were reapplied) and Iran’s economy suffering, the United States has effectively cut Iran out of international commerce already. Washington might have a few effective moves left, but a continued maximum-pressure economic campaign will now be more about sustaining than increasing costs to Iran, largely by making sure companies and countries grudgingly abiding by U.S. restrictions continue to do so. The real signal Iran will take from the new sanctions is that the Trump administration either does not understand this reality or cannot come up with a more effective option to improve upon it.

As is often the case with this administration, the rollout was confused, with the president and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin claiming variously that the designations were a response to Iran downing a U.S. drone or targeting commercial shipping last week, or were already expected before those provocations, or both. But it is hard to see the sanctions as anything but a tit-for-tat reaction, and that is how Iran will interpret them. That means that, if the United States wants to respond to future Iranian moves, whether increases in Iran’s nuclear program or proxy attacks in the region, Trump will be increasingly limited to military responses. The effect of this is to ratchet up tensions with no strategic outcome in mind, pointing us toward a confrontation simply for lack of a better idea.

Third, the new sanctions suggest that this administration is not looking for a negotiation. For some reason, the administration only said that foreign minister Zarif will be designated for sanctions but didn’t yet do designate him as such, which is, to say the least, odd. If the Treasury Department believed he had any assets abroad, this warning would allow him to move them (of course, he does not—the whole thing is symbolic). Washington’s Iran hawks consider Zarif a reprehensible avatar of a repugnant regime. But if you want to negotiate, the other side needs a representative. Iran has chosen theirs in Zarif, and targeting him will not ease the way to the table. Even more, targeting Zarif will lay bare the eroding limits of U.S. influence. European and Asian governments will happily continue to meet with him, facilitating his visits in the face of whatever financial pressure Washington applies. Each of these visits will be a measure of U.S. isolation.

What is Trump really after? He says he wants negotiations with Iran and has repeatedly sought a summit-level meeting. If that’s indeed what he wants, then the approach demonstrated with these new sanctions is misguided. He will not achieve talks with more belligerence, or with a sanctions regime that confirms Iranian fears of U.S. intentions and Iranian hopes of U.S. isolation and limited options.

If the administration is serious about a negotiation with Tehran, it needs to send a whole different set of signals—one that demonstrates unambiguous de-escalation. The options for such messages are limited only by Washington’s creativity, and many of them would not require showy public moves that Trump might find humiliating or hard to swallow.

For example, announced U.S. military deployments to the Gulf could be quietly pulled back or slow-rolled. U.S. forces in the region could take subtly less active postures in ways that the Iranians would be likely to detect, without any public announcements or tweeting. Trump could leave sanctions in place but let Allies and partners know that, in defined areas, they will not be actively enforced. Trump will see the remaining participants in the Iran nuclear deal at the G-20 meeting in Tokyo this week and can encourage them to offer accommodations that keep Iran in compliance with its nuclear deal obligations (or return Iran to compliance if it violates nuclear limits this week, as threatened). Europe could finalize the financial mechanism designed to facilitate humanitarian trade with Iran without further histrionic threats of U.S. sanctions.

Trump and his administration are inarticulate and cacophonous in much of what they do, both foreign and domestic. It is not surprising that their inability to communicate extends to subtle symbolism and diplomatic signaling. But it matters. The messages Trump is sending make negotiations with Tehran less and less likely and increase the chance of another ruinous war of choice in the Middle East.
Save As Many As You Can

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 38020
    • View Profile
🚀 Will the US attack Iran?
« Reply #714 on: June 29, 2019, 01:03:39 AM »
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/3QfZZz-RrfE" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/3QfZZz-RrfE</a>
Save As Many As You Can

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 38020
    • View Profile
https://www.globalresearch.ca/iran-vs-spineless-europe-how-far-will-us-western-threats-go/5683369

Iran vs. Spineless Europe. How far will US-western Threats Go?
By Peter Koenig
Global Research, July 12, 2019
Region: Europe, Middle East & North Africa
Theme: Law and Justice, Oil and Energy, US NATO War Agenda
In-depth Report: IRAN: THE NEXT WAR?


Iran announced the second step in reducing her commitment under the 2015 so-called Nuclear Deal, officially known as The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), by exceeding the limit set by agreement of 3.67% uranium enrichment and 300 kg of enriched uranium accumulation. When asked by the media about his reaction, Trump says, “they know what they are doing” and adds, “they better be careful”. Pompeo warns Iran of “more isolation, more sanctions.”

Iran waited for 60 weeks, after the US unilaterally withdrew from the deal in May 2018, hoping that the Europeans, the so-called E3 (Germany, France and the UK) would honor their commitment to JCPOA, signed in July 2015 in Vienna, Austria. But to this day, the Europeans cannot bring themselves to detach from the US tyranny of sanctions. So, Iran went ahead with this crucial decision to also step out from the agreement.

Today, RT reports that Iran is forced to step further away from the nuclear deal. Iran is “pushing back against US sanctions and European inaction on trade, Iran is stepping up its uranium enrichment.”

In fact, Iran has already exceeded the 3.67% of enrichment and the 300 kg cap set under the JCPOA. And according to Iran’s deputy foreign minister Abbas Araghchi, who spoke to a press conference a few days ago, the enrichment levels would stand at 5 percent for now. Iran would give it another 60 weeks to wait for the European reaction.

Iran’s Foreign Minister, Javad Zarif, tweeted that

    “All such steps are reversible only through E3 compliance. Having failed to implement their obligations under JCPOA – including after the US withdrawal – EU/E3 should at a minimum politically support Iran’s remedial measures under Para 36 [of the JCPOA], including at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).” Mr.Zarif added, “E3 have no pretexts to avoid a firm political stance to preserve JCPOA and counter U.S unilateralism.”

IAEA’s Director General, Yukiya Amano has informed the Board of Governors that the Agency verified on 1 July that Iran’s total enriched uranium stockpile exceeded the deal’s limit, and that Iran was in breach of the agreement.

But that is not true. There is no breach. Foreign Minister Zarif, rightly pointed out that Iran’s amassing more enriched uranium than permitted under the deal, was not a violation. Iran was exercising its right to respond to the US unilateral withdrawal from the pact a year ago, to the E3 not honoring their part of the deal, and to Washington’s imposed totally illegal and unjustified punishing sanctions on Tehran.

Zarif confirmed Iran’s action and why, by tweeting,

    “We triggered and exhausted para 36 after US withdrawal. Para 36 of the accord illustrates why. We gave E3+2 [also including Russia and China] a few weeks, while reserving our right. We finally took action after 60 weeks. As soon as E3 abide by their obligations, we’ll reverse.”

Mr. Zarif is absolutely right. Here is what the famous para 36 of the JCPOA says:

    Disputed Resolution Mechanism

    36. If Iran believed that any or all of the E3/EU+3 were not meeting their commitments under this JCPOA, Iran could refer the issue to the Joint Commission for resolution; similarly, if any of the E3/EU+3 believed that Iran was not meeting its commitments under this JCPOA, any of the E3/EU+3 could do the same. The Joint Commission would have 15 days to resolve the issue, unless the time period was extended by consensus. After Joint Commission consideration, any participant could refer the issue to Ministers of Foreign Affairs, if it believed the compliance issue had not been resolved. Ministers would have 15 days to resolve the issue, unless the time period was extended by consensus. After Joint Commission consideration – in parallel with (or in lieu of) review at the Ministerial level – either the complaining participant or the participant whose performance is in question could request that the issue be considered by an Advisory Board, which would consist of three members (one each appointed by the participants in the dispute and a third independent member). The Advisory Board should provide a non-binding opinion on the compliance issue within 15 days. If, after this 30-day process the issue is not resolved, the Joint Commission would consider the opinion of the Advisory Board for no more than 5 days in order to resolve the issue. If the issue still has not been resolved to the satisfaction of the complaining participant, and if the complaining participant deems the issue to constitute significant nonperformance, then that participant could treat the unresolved issue as grounds to cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA in whole or in part and/or notify the UN Security Council that it believes the issue constitutes significant non-performance.

The provocations by the west seem to be inexhaustible. On Thursday, 4 July, the UK, ordered by Washington, has seized an Iranian oil tanker which they suspected of carrying oil for Syria. Al Jazeera reports:

    “British Royal Marines, police and customs agents on Thursday [4 July] stopped and seized the Grace 1 vessel in Gibraltar on suspicion it carried Iranian crude oil to Syria in breach of European union sanctions against President Bashar al-Assad’s government.”

Foreign Minister Zarif tweeted that UK’s unlawful seizure of a tanker with Iranian oil is piracy, pure and simple. Iran denied that the tanker was bound for Syria’s Baniyas refinery – which does not even have the capacity for such a super tanker to dock, says Iran’s deputy foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi. He did not elaborate on the final destination of the super tanker.

It is clear, the UK, in connivance with its transatlantic empire, does the bidding for Trump’s warrior team, Bolton and Pompeo. – How much farther will they go, the provocateurs? Do they want to incite war with Iran, a retaliatory action, like Iran seizing a UK tanker in return – so as to ‘justify’ a western, possibly Israeli, aggression on Iran, with a counter attack by Iran, triggering a direct intervention by Washington – of course, in defense of Israel – and a major conflict, possibly nuclear, might erupt?

Iran most likely will not fall into this trap. But the question must be asked, how far will the US-western threats, sanctions and physical aggressions go?

This morning, 10 July, RT reports,

    “The latest out of Washington is that the US is looking to put together a “coalition” that would “ensure freedom of navigation both in the Straits of Hormuz and Bab al-Mandeb,” as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Joseph Dunford said on Tuesday. These are the waterways connecting the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman, and the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden, respectively.”

What this “freedom of navigation” means, is outsourcing naval blockade and wester piracy of Iranian oil tankers. And that in the 21st Century. How deep can you, WEST, fall to go for this kind of high sea crime practiced centuries ago? Your moral and ethical deterioration is accelerating rapidly into a bottomless black hole from where there is no return.

There is no question, that Iran does not seek to become a nuclear power, that was never the intention in the first place as was attested already almost ten years ago by the American 16 foremost intelligence agencies, but Iran wants to use its nuclear power generation capacity more efficiently – and that is their full right, especially if the Nuclear Deal is broken. The saber rattling, fear mongering and sanctions are meant to intimidate and punish Iran for not bending to the tyranny of Washington – mainly changing regime and hand over Iran’s riches to the US-western corporatocracy.

What it boils down to is whether the E3 – Germany, France and the UK – have sufficient backbone to go ahead on their own, honoring the JCPOA accord, and whether they and the European Union as a whole, would be willing and sovereignly capable of defending their companies from US sanctions, if they start trading with Iran. This is the question that many European corporations are already asking, especially European oil corporations.

At one point, there seems to have been political will by Europe to circumvent the US sanctions regime by introducing a special payment method, called the Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges (INSTEX) which would allow companies in Europe to do business with Iran outside the US-and dollar-dominated SWIFT payment system.However, this works only, if the EU stands up for their companies defending them from US sanctions. Otherwise, as Pompeo already hinted,

    “We will simply sanction all companies that use INSTEX.”

In the long run there are three realities to keep in mind.

First, US sanctions will not go away, unless the rest of the world stands up to the US and sanctions them back, in other words stops trading with the US and uses different payment modes than SWIFT and the US-dollar, for example, local currencies, or yuan and ruble through the Chinese International Payment System (CIPS), or the Russian MIR system (MIR – meaning, world, or peace), introduced by the Bank of Russia in 2015 and which is also opening up to worldwide use.

Second, it is only a matter of time until the Europeans, either as a union or as individual countries will realize that trading with the East – Russia, China and all of the huge mega-Continent of Eurasia which also includes the Middle East, is the most natural trading that can be. It has existed for thousands of years, before the ascent of the AngloZionist empire, some 300 years ago. There is no division of seas. It is a contiguous landmass. And everybody from other continents is welcome to join, peacefully, without the intention of domination and ransacking natural resources.

Third, this second reality will be enhanced and accelerated by China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), also called the New Silk Road – which makes already significant inroads with peoples connecting infrastructure – roads, railways, maritime routes – plus industry, education, research and cultural connections and bridges along the BRI-routes. BRI will very likely become the future for connecting humanity with equitable socioeconomic development for decades to come.

Therefore, Iran may seriously consider dropping for now her ambition to trade with the west – the west is a sinking ship. And instead look to the East for the future. It may mean temporary losses – yes, but so what – the future is not composed of a pyramid of fake dollar-based instant profit – but of foresight and vision. Iran is on the right track by aspiring and most likely shortly entering the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) as a full-fledged member. But, yes, it means dropping the west for now – until the west sees the light on her own.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on New Eastern Outlook.
Save As Many As You Can