Donald Trump KowTows to Israel on Iran Part II by Publius Tacitus


While the Trumper gave a good teleprompter speech today on the topic of Iran and nukes, he demonstrated great ignorance on the reality that is Iran. He clearly is reflecting the Israeli right wing view on the matter, one that is enthusiastically embraced in the United States by the folks we now refer to as Neo Conservatives. (These are the same people that Phil Giraldi wrote about, America's Jews Are Driving America's Wars).

Trump's speech was laughable. The following passages illustrate how delusional the Trump is when it comes to Iran:

Iran is under the control of a fanatical regime that seized power in 1979 and forced a proud people to submit to its extremist rule. This radical regime has raided the wealth of one of the world's oldest and most vibrant nations, and spread death destruction and chaos all around the globe. . . .

The regime harbored high level terrorists in the wake of the 9/11 attacks including Osama bin Laden's son. In Iraq and Afghanistan groups supported by Iran have killed hundreds of American military personnel. The Iranian dictatorship's aggression continues to this day. The regime remains the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, and provides assistance to al-Qaida, the Taliban, Hezbollah, Hamas and other terrorist networks. it develops, deploys and proliferates missiles that threaten American troops and our allies. It harasses American ships and threatens freedom of navigation in the Arabian Gulf and in the Red Sea. It imprisons Americans on false charges, and it launches cyber-attacks against our critical infrastructure, financial system and military.

The U.S is far from the only target of the Iranian dictatorship's long campaign of bloodshed. The regime violently suppresses its own citizens it shot unarmed student protestors in the street during the green revolution. This regime has fueled sectarian violence in Iraq and vicious civil wars in Yemen and Syria. In Syria, the Iranian regime has supported the atrocities of Bashar al-Assad's regime. And condone Assad's use of chemical weapons against helpless civilians including many, many children.

Where does one begin to counter such lies and misrepresentations? Who has been the most destabilizing force in the Middle East over the last 27 years? I would suggest that the United States multiple invasions of Iraq, military action in Libya and our decision to help arm and train Islamic rebels keen on overthrowing Syria's President Assad qualifies us as the biggest meddlers and chaos makers.

One of the recurring big lies being pushed in the media–by Republicans and Democrat as well as some of our allies–is that Iran is the biggest sponsor of terrorism in the World.

The chutzpah award on this point goes to Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Minister, Adel al-Jubeir, who declared in October 2015:

. . .that Iran “is the biggest sponsor of terrorism in the world, and it is working on destabilizing the region. If it wants to build good relations with its neighbors, it ought to deal with them based on the good neighborliness principle and not to interfere in their affairs. We [would] welcome such a step.”

(Read more:

The Saudi Foreign Minister conveniently ignored the fact that 15 of the 19 terrorists who hijacked planes and attacked America on 11 September 2001 were Saudis not Iranians.

Iran is no innocent on the issue of terrorism. The Revolutionary Guard and their agents, following the ordres of the Mullahs, were responsbile for the deaths of thousands from hundreds of terrorist attacks since the early 1980s.

When Iran fell under the rule of the Ayatollah, it routinely relied on terrorism—bombings, hijackings and kidnapping—to pursue its goals. They were directly involved in the taking of U.S. hostages in Lebanon and the bombings of the US Embassy in Beirut and the Marine barracks. But Iran’s actions were not just blind hatred. There was a strategic context to Tehran’s use of terrorism. Iran was at war with Iraq, which had the full support of the United States and other western countries. For Iran terrorism was a way to punch back against a more powerful military foe. The pragmatism on the part of Iran was further evidenced by the fact that it had a secret arrangement with Israel in acquiring weapons to use against Iraq.

But it is wrong to insist that Iran continues to be the major force driving the terrorist violence seen in the Middle East, Europe, Africa and America. In contrast to the period 1982 thru 1989, which was the high water mark of Iran reliance on terrorism as a key component of its foreign policy, Iran has shifted towards more conventional political and military methods for achieving its national goals.

The terrorism that marked Iran twenty years ago is no longer its calling card. The role of chief terrorist has been taken over by a legion of radical Sunni groups. Starting with the Al Qaeda attacks on New York and Washington, DC in September of 2001, the identity of the terrorist attacks has shifted dramatically, with the vast majority of the violence attributable to radical Sunni Islamists. According to the latest edition of the Global Terrorism Index ( , a publication of the Institute for Economics and Peace, four groups accounted for 74% of all fatalities from terrorism in 2015—Boko Haram, Al-Qaida, the Taliban and ISIS.

Consider the list of Muslim Groups presently actively hostile to the US:

– The Islamic State (Sunni)

– The Al-Nusra Front (Sunni)

– Al-Qa'ida Central (Sunni)

– Al-Qa'ida in Magheb (Sunni)

– Al-Qa'ida in Arabian Peninsula (Sunni)

– Boku Haram (Sunni)

– Al-Shabbab (Sunni)

– Khorassan Group (Sunni)

– Society of the Muslim Brothers (Sunni)

– Sayyaf Group in the Philippines (Sunni)

– Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan (Sunni)

– Lashgar i Taiba (Sunni)

– Jemaa Islamiya (Sunni)

– Houthis (Shia)

Of the 14 groups, only the Houthis are tied to Iran.

The last significant terrorist attack that is believed to have been carried out with Iran’s support was the July 2012 bombing of the bus hauling Israeli tourists in Bulgaria. But that was not just gratuitous violence to kill Jews for the sake of killing Jews. It was classic retaliation for what Iran perceived as Israel’s backing of a terrorist campaign in Iran.

The attack on the bus followed an 18-month series of attacks in Iran resulting in the murder of engineers and scientists believed to be involved with Iran’s Nuclear program. Iran blamed Israel (and to a lesser degree the United States) for the following murders:

January 12, 2010 Masoud Alimohammadi Iranian Physicist


November 29, 2010 Majid Shahriari Iranian nuclear scientist


November 29, 2010 Attempted killing of Fereydoon Abbasi. Iranian nuclear scientist


July 23, 2011 Darioush Rezaeinejad Iranian electrical engineer


November 12, 2011 Major General Hassan Tehrani Moghaddam



January 11, 2012 Mostafa Ahmadi-Roshan Iranian nuclear scientist


One can easily imagine the outrage and demands for revenge that would sweep America if we believed that Iran was sending operatives into the United States to murder engineers and scientists working on projects, such as drones.

But these facts do not matter. The popular and persistent meme in the US media is that Iran is an unrepentant terrorist state. Iran, if you listen to the pundits, is using its special operations military forces to train and equip terrorists. But in an ironic twist, it is the United States that is implicated in attacks against Iran.

Author Sean Naylor, Relentless Strike, which details the history of operations and missions carried out by U.S. Joint Special Operations Command aka JSOC over the last 30 years, sheds light on an uncomfortable truth regarding our support to terrorists. To quote an old cartoon, “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

“JSOC personnel also worked with the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK), a militant Iranian exile group that had based itself in Iraq after falling afoul of the ayatollahs’ regime in Tehran. The State Department had placed the MEK on its list of designated terrorist organizations, but that didn’t stop JSOC from taking an attitude of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” toward the group. “They were a group of folks that could transit the border, and they were willing to help us out on what we wanted to do with Iran,” said a special operations officer.”

The MEK were classified as a terrorist group until the United States decided that as long as the MEK would help kill Iranians rather than Americans that they were no longer terrorists. The MEK’s history of terrorism is quite clear:

  • During the 1970s, the MEK killed U.S. military personnel and U.S. civilians working on defense projects in Tehran and supported the takeover in 1979 of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.
  • In 1981, the MEK detonated bombs in the head office of the Islamic Republic Party and the Premier’s office, killing some 70 high-ranking Iranian officials, including Chief Justice Ayatollah Mohammad Beheshti, President Mohammad-Ali Rajaei, and Premier Mohammad-Javad Bahonar.
  • Near the end of the 1980-1988 war with Iran, Baghdad armed the MEK with military equipment and sent it into action against Iranian forces.
  • In 1991, the MEK reportedly assisted the Government of Iraq in suppressing the Shia uprisings in southern Iraq and the Kurdish uprisings in the north.
  • In April 1992, the MEK conducted near-simultaneous attacks on Iranian embassies and installations in 13 countries, demonstrating the group’s ability to mount large-scale operations overseas.
  • In April 1999, the MEK targeted key military officers and assassinated the deputy chief of the Iranian Armed Forces General Staff.
  • In April 2000, the MEK attempted to assassinate the commander of the Nasr Headquarters, Tehran’s interagency board responsible for coordinating policies on Iraq.
  • The normal pace of anti-Iranian operations increased during “Operation Great Bahman” in February 2000, when the group launched a dozen attacks against Iran. One of those attacks included a mortar attack against the leadership complex in Tehran that housed the offices of the Supreme Leader and the President.
  • In 2000 and 2001, the MEK was involved regularly in mortar attacks and hit-and-run raids on Iranian military and law enforcement units and government buildings near the Iran-Iraq border, although MEK terrorism in Iran declined toward the end of 2001.

Prominent U.S. political and military leaders from both parties have been quite willing to excuse the terrorism of the MEK

In 2011, several former senior U.S. officials, including Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, three former chairmen of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, two former directors of the CIA, former commander of NATO Wesley Clark, two former U.S. Ambassadors to the United Nations, the former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, a former White House Chief of Staff, a former commander of the United States Marine Corps, former U.S. National Security Advisor Frances Townsend, and U.S. President Barack Obama‘s retired National Security Adviser General James L. Jones called for the MEK to be removed from its official State Department foreign terrorist listing on the grounds that they constituted a viable opposition to the Iranian government.

As long as a group of terrorists will back the U.S. cause then we have seen the willingness of politicians to ignore their terrorist past. With respect to the MEK it was Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama that ultimately gave the group with a record of killing Americans a pass.

The U.S. Iranian relationship is best described as that of couple trying to find common ground after a bitter divorce. The fall of the Shah in 1979 caused a rancorous, deadly split between Washington and Tehran, with each partner believing they had been betrayed and humilitated by the other.

Within Iran and the United States there are prominent people and groups who readily recite the litany of wrongs they have endured from the other to justify feelings of hatred and disgust. Yet, the focus should be on who is doing what now. It is on that point with respect to the issue of terrorism that Americans must acknowledge that the Iran of 2017 is not the Iran 0f 1986. The vast majority of terrorism that is shaking the world today is conceived and nutured by radical Sunnis bent on destroying Iran. That is a fact that is largely ignored in the United States.

This entry was posted in Borg Wars, Iran. Bookmark the permalink.

81 Responses to Donald Trump KowTows to Israel on Iran Part II by Publius Tacitus

  1. The Porkchop Express says:

    It should be added that one can also draw a direct line from Kermit Roosevelt and British instigating in Mossadegh’s overthrow in ’53 and the excessive lavishing of military aid and support of the Shah to what happened in ’79 and Iranian actions post ’79. Particularly during the backdrop of decolonization throughout the 3rd world. There are many in this country who won’t forgive Iran for what they did in ’79 and there are likewise many Iranians who won’t forgive us for what we did in ’53; they blame us and we blame them for the acrimonious relationship. Israel and the Gulf states are aware of this dynamic and continue to leverage it for fear of preventing at least some form of regional cooperation or detente between the US and Iran.

  2. Walrus says:

    Congress will now try to outdo Trumps hyperbole.

  3. Oilman2 says:

    The interesting thing here is that first sentence of your final paragraph, “prominent people and groups”. As things exist today in the world, everybody has a government and most of them are really bad at governing. Most of them live in echo chambers, and most of what is put out in media is false, a limited hangout op or a skewed perspective on reality.
    Within all of this, both Iranians and Americans are ill served by these groups and figureheads you speak of. Whatever the reason for the conflicts, the only way to solve the issues is to sit down and talk, and let history be where it belongs, in the past. It doesn’t mean you cannot take a lesson from history, but while it may rhyme, it only very rarely repeats.
    It is always amazing to me that in business circles if the subject turns to politics, there is near universal agreement that governments are very stupid and all are corrupt. And this I have seen from Indonesia to Ghana to Brazil to China – I have never heard anyone sing praises to their government, not ever.
    How is it that the ROW sees that things are different now, yet American leaders seem stuck in either the Cold War era or else the Reagan years? I am thinking that maybe it is because a huge chunk of our politicians are taking Alzheimer meds maybe? And AIPAC is paying each of them, and if not AIPAC, then OpenSecrets can show you who is, and that is usually big finance in one form or another.
    I have no idea where Trump got this stinking stew of a speech, but it truly shows how ignorant he is of both history and foreign policy. Yet what was one to expect from his background – I doubt he knows who Tamerlane was…
    It’s tragic that people can get along just fine, but their governments cannot. Yet it is the taxes on the people that government lives on. So the way to strangle your government is patently obvious.
    If we were to remove every conflict that the US has been involved in since the Civil War, how many wholly non-US conflicts have there been?? That alone should speak volumes to every American.

  4. “They were directly involved in the taking of U.S. hostages in Lebanon and the bombings of the US Embassy in Beirut and the Marine barracks.”
    I prefer to regard those attacks as “asymmetric warfare” rather than terrorism. And most of the “terrorism” since then has been unproven, such as the Argentina bombings.
    If you look at this Wikipedia list of “Iran terrorism”, you find almost nothing which could really be attributed to “terrorism” in the same sense as Al Qaeda or directly connected to Iran. It’s a list of charges, not evidence. Dig deeper and the evidence becomes supposition. For example, almost everything related to Lebanon refers to Hizballah, not Iran. Iran is lumped in because of its support for Hizballah. But Hizballah’s goals were not “terrorism” in conducting its actions, but war against the US and Israel.
    Iran and state-sponsored terrorism
    But it is true that everything Iran has done recently which has caused it to be charged with “terrorism” is primarily support for Hizballah in Lebanon which is considered a “terrorist organization” by the US, even though it is not. Hizballah is a national resistance organization.
    The important thing today is that Trump’s withdrawal from the Iran Deal inevitably means war with Iran. All the “measures” that Trump’s proposal talks about will have zero effect on Iran, which has withstood and evaded sanctions for the past thirty-five years.
    This will leave the US with only one “option” – which is not an “option” at all, but a GOAL. The US elites have intended war with Iran for the last seventeen years and have hated Iran since the Iranian revolution. Israel has intended it for the last who knows how long.
    I’ve been predicting war with Iran since around the time of the Iraq war. It hasn’t happened yet in my opinion because of two reasons: 1) the 2007 NIE on Iran which stated that Iran does NOT have a nuclear weapons program; and 2) Israel doesn’t want one until Syria and Hizballah have been neutralized as effective actors in such a war – the Israeli attack on Lebanon in 2006 had that as its primary goal.
    The latter continues to be the main stumbling block to a war with Iran. Syria is not going anywhere and will likely emerge stronger than it was from the current crisis. So now the rhetoric turns against Hizballah in recent weeks. The question now is will Israel unilaterally attack Hizballah or will it continue to be in a holding pattern until some other means can be found to get either the US and/or NATO to justify an attack on Lebanon. Or will it find some way to get Trump to unilaterally attack Iran.
    Based on Trump’s actions, it will not be that hard for Israel to get him to attack – or support an Israeli attack on – Lebanon and then a war with Iran. Can anyone doubt that if Israel unilaterally attacks Lebanon that Trump will support Israel totally? Perhaps even deploy US military assets – already available due to the Syria crisis – directly against Hizballah?
    The consequences of an Iran war will be enormous. The cost will be four times the size of the Afghan and Iraq wars, it will go on for a decade or more because Iran will never surrender, and it will cost scores of thousands of US lives rather than a mere 5,000 over six years like Iraq. The oil price increase will beggar the US economy despite shale oil. And if Iran truly does employ terrorism, it will bring that terrorism home to US soil.
    In my view, this outcome is almost inevitable.

  5. Kooshy says:

    PT with all due respect, if I was going to write a speech promoting my decision, to convince my constituencies that I am making a good decision in thier behalf to protect thier influence I wouldn’t have done it much different propaganda misinformation than what was written for him. The problem is IMO this was not in the interest of US, and American people don’t know that.

  6. Kooshy says:

    IMO, The western world problem with Iran in ME is, that the American ( or any other country/power) plan for a hegemonic control of the wetern Asian region will
    not suceed (it never did) without Iran being capitulated or worst if Iran acts and decide independently.
    This is the issue and not the nuclear case and point is Syria, Iraq, Bahrain Yemen etc.

  7. Henshaw says:

    Not necessarily, see
    This article is interesting- it cites Pew research to describe how people in USA are willing to consciously vote for Trump against their own interests. Once there is this degree of irrationality in voter behavior, we’re in very dangerous territory.

  8. Michael Smith says:

    Thank you for a lucid summary of US-Iranian relations which so clearly illuminates the rank stupidity of American diplomacy.

  9. The Porkchop Express says:

    Unfortunately, Western hegemonic control of the region is pretty much out of the question at this point. Iran will not capitulate AND it will act independently–or in conjunction with regional neighbors.
    ME regional hegemony, at least since WW2, has mostly been a duel between Iran, Iraq, and Israel. Iraq is out of the game. It’s mostly down to Iran and Israel–Turkey and Saudi to a lesser degree. Iran was already once a US proxy, particularly while we were busy with the VN war. The Iranian ethos post ’79, however, was “neither East nor West.” Our attitude/policies towards Iran since 79, however, have resulted in Iran developing itself as its own country, free of a guiding hand. Iran learned the hard way that to be independent it had to make decisions that were independent of a powerful benefactor (US or Soviets at that point). I can’t see Iran giving up, for any reason, any independence or regional influence it feels it has rightly earned especially since Iranians consider it a point of national pride.
    Whatever Trump is doing, or thinks he is doing, is beyond ridiculous besides suiting the interests of the Israelites, the Khaleejis, and, to a lesser extent, the evangelicals–if not himself personally setting up a political win in the future whereby Congress either: acquiesces to his “strategic genius” (a la the NFL) or they behave responsibly and salvage the JCPOA which he can then hammer them with for being “soft” or “appeasing the enemy” in 2018/2020. All provided this doesn’t kick off a major shitstorm beforehand.

  10. sid_finster says:

    I so am stealing this m

  11. Bandolero says:

    Yes, I think so, too. But Congress will also have to assess what action it would take. Whatever Congress decides on sanctions regarding US companies is not effective. Congress efforts to forbid Boeing to deliver aircraft to Iran, would just have the effect that Iran would fly Airbus. The loser with that would just be Boeing and noone else.
    The only interesting thing are secondary sanctions in the style: either you do business with us or Iran. It means EU companies had to decide: either do business with the US or with Iran. The main problem here may become the US-EU relationship. The current mood in the EU seems to be more and more to retaliate US punishment on EU companies for doing business with Iran quid pro quo. It means if the US Congress would punish Airbus, VW or Total for doing business with Iran the EU would retaliate in kind against the US. So, in effect, instead of punishing Iran the US Congress would just start a trade war with the EU. Trump’s speech today may have increased the chances that this scenario happens even in the case US Congress doesn’t relate new anti Iran sanctions to the nuclear file, because in the EU may grow suspicions that new sanctions are borne out of anger about the nuclear deal.
    I think the US Congress is in a difficult situation here if it wants to impose effective sanctions on Iran. The only realistic way to do it is convincing one from the western signatories France, Britain, EU or Germany, that Iran violated the UN security resolution, which made the deal part of international law.
    But I doubt that the opponents of the deal will manage to do this.

  12. mike says:

    Publius Tacitus –
    We finally agree on something.
    The question now is how to stop the drift towards the bombing of another country? Iran needs some of those Russian influence bots (SNARK alert, I realize that would make it even worse once known or suspicioned). Perhaps the neo-conservatives are already starting a campaign to label you as an Iran bot.

  13. mike says:

    Kooshy – “…was not in the interest of US, and American people don’t know that. “
    I know it. The majority of Americans know it, they voted against Trump (53.9% of the electorate). And it seems from the comments here that some Trump voters know it now also.

  14. Kooshy says:

    I think I said the same thing. I don’t know what and where DT’ plans with regard to Iran are and come from. But there is one thing due strictly to geography, demography and history that I have read I am sure of that you s nothing in Western Asia can suceed if Iran as A nation doesn’t wish so as I wrote case and point is various US plans as the region’ hegemon in the ME ever since the Iranian revolution.( Iranian independence from western security system), Case and point are plenty, starting with Lebanon in 80’ to Yemen in 2017, one just should count the US success in policy implementations in ME ever since the revolution, that number amounts to zero including Israel wars and KSA’.

  15. Walrus says:

    Congress can stop Airbus dead in its tracks. Airbus aircraft contain mountains of American owned technology in the avionics and engines. All the supply contracts, at least for sensitive technology (ie cutting edge stuff like turbine blades, ring laser gyros, accelerometers, etc.) contain clauses forbidding sale or disposal to third parties without U.S. permission.
    If Congress stops Boeing, it will also stop Airbus.

  16. Kooshy says:

    Mike with due respect I don’t see a war nor I see US getting in any direct war with any country capable of hurting US interests or allies.
    Proxy stuff sure both sides will do plenty but direct war in someone else’s turf where you US and her allies are more vanurable I don’t see coming actually I never did even when Chaney had his arms at his waste facing Iran on a deck of US ship. I believe you know geography and history and culture of Iran, IMO a war with Iran is not as easy as is being told to Americans.

  17. Bandolero says:

    “If Congress stops Boeing, it will also stop Airbus.”
    The problem for Congress here is that the EU just retaliates in kind and instead of punishing Iran the result of Congress’ action may just be a lose-lose EU-US trade war.
    I made in my previous commantry a serious and substantial mistake: of course, JCPOA can only be reversed it ALL of the US-EU partners do that together. One EU partner is not enough for the US, it needs to be ALL.

  18. Babak Makkinejad says:

    Trump has soothed Arabs, Israelis, Shoah Cultists, discomfited Republicans, and shown EU who calls the shots.
    He has not done anything against JCPOA and Iran – yet. Nor has he presented any Sttategy for dealing with Iran, Arabs, and others.

  19. LeaNder says:

    Agree, Kooshy.
    Iran: is were he can most easily deliver on his campaign promises. He clearly showed his intentions. Obviously most prominently in his speech at AIPAC, but also in his foreign policy speech.
    No camouflage, concealment or deception in this case, not that I would put that past him generally. This is straightforward, Trumpism. OK, maybe by passing it on to congress. He is the boss, they will do it for him. His crowds must love that.
    Yes, his claqueurs are in awe. Let’s see Google: site:** Trump + Iran. Let me pick the conservative tree house, since I am sure sundance delivers dutifully:
    first comment post speech report:
    Orygun says:
    October 13, 2017 at 1:46 am
    We are so fortunate to have President Trump to represent us. The seemingly invisible Americans that are just trying to raise a family and survive.

    People in the Breitbart comment section must be heavily pleased too, let’s check. Speech:
    first comment:
    Da Trumpstah • 9 hours ago
    Cue the soros bots disguised as disgruntled trump supporters to be outraged in 3….2….

    first of 118 responses:
    Obamas Iran deal was a betrayal and infused over 100 billion dollars into the terrorist regime. Nothing can be done to get that money back, they already have it. Trump is giving Congress the chance to salvage, remedy and rectify what we still can. Just one example of for instance, the terrible nuke “deal” in place allows Iran to inspect the Parchin military site themselves –
    unacceptable. Bottom line, the deal in place does nothing to prevent Iran from getting nukes. Remember BJ Clintons “deal” with N Korea that would prevent them from getting nukes? Lies Lies Lies. If Congress can’t get the measures that needs to be in place, Trump will withdraw completely. Might as well. Iran is gonna try to go nuclear with or without the current deal in place. We need to box them in where we have full transparency and more controls. I believe Trump put us on a path to do just that. Only time will tell of course

    I suppose, everyone remembers how Trump used this meme.

  20. LeaNder says:

    The irony may well be, that in this case he very, very much relies on the Iran threat tradition established by his hated “fake news”. They surely established the topic on the average American’s mind.

  21. SC says:

    According to Politico, Trump has been listening to Nikki Haley talk about Iran for some time:
    “Two weeks after her return from [a July IAEA visit in] Vienna, in remarks at AEI, Haley floated what one NSC official described as the “initial trial balloon” for the path the administration laid out on Friday. “The purpose of the AEI speech was to figure out, ‘Is this gonna work? Does this thread that needle?’” the official said, describing a strategy by which the president would decertify the deal but remain a party to it.”
    And that IAEA speech that’s mentioned, well, yup, Trumps speech reads like muddled shortened version of it:

  22. dog ear says:

    trump is ignorant because he is reflectthe right wing israelis….who have no clue about iranians.except the pistachios

  23. J says:

    Are we to now conclude that Trump is another Nixon part deaux?
    It appears that in the backdrop, Kissinger has been advising Trump regarding U.S. furn policy. Kissinger is a big time NWO (some also spell him deep state as well) advocate.
    There are a lot of old heads who intensely, intensely dislike and distrust Kissinger for various reasons, and for Trump to have Kissinger whispering into his right ear, find this very unnerving and disturbing.

  24. FourthAndLong says:

    If psychosis means being out of touch with reality, then that speech of Trump’s referenced by PT, is certainly indication thereof. It’s Donnie’s gift to Shelly and his criminal gang. Big time. I agree with Ehud Barak’s estimation that if in fact the US follows through the implications for proliferation and ME peace are dire. The German foreign minister agrees, says it is potentially world changing. And in the context of the North Korean situation it is sheer, unbridled idiocy. Trump is resembling a severely autistic child to me more than anything else I can recollect lately.
    This piece by Sherman Gabriel from Vanity Fair two days ago has gotten a lot of attention. People in the White House think el Hefe is losing it in a big way. Mention of speculation whether or not Mathis and Kelley have worked out a plan to tackle him if he orders a launch at NK. The photo nearly says it all:

  25. Anna says:

    “… where would the Empire’s puppeteers meet to finalize and coordinate their plans to attack Iran? Washington? New York? London? NATO HQ in Brussels? Davos? Nope. In Herzilia. Never heard of that place? The Israeli city of Herzliya is named after Theodor Herzl, the father of modern Zionism … For a while, Herzilia truly became the see of the Empire’s inner core of heavy hitters. … Richard Perle delivered the keynote: “If the Israeli government comes to the conclusion that it has no choice but to take action, the reaction of the U.S. will be the belief in the vitality that this action must succeed, even if the U.S. needs to act with Israel in the current American administration”. … if anyone has ANY doubts left that the Empire will totally ignore the will of the American people as expressed in the last election and strike at Iran, this conference should settle the issue.”

  26. FourthAndLong says:

    Ehud Barak and several top ranking Israeli Intelligence chiefs have gone on record very strenuously as to how seriously a mistake it would be to pull out of the JCPOA.
    Apparently it is the clique around Netanyahu and the Sheldon Adelson crowd. Then of course you have the Naftali Bennett and his ilk. A man who single handedly destroys the myth of Jewish intellectual superiority. Though that list is rather long and lengthening of late.

  27. Christian Chuba says:

    Trump’s speech was so ludicrous that you can only analyze it by looking at what was correct. I’ll list them in alphabetical order …. ‘the detention of Americans’, the end.
    Since I find his voluminous lies too depressing to review yet another time, I would like to ask any of you who care to respond on a related topic. Were the North Koreans really building a heavy water, nuclear power plant in Syria when it was bombed by the Israelis?
    I read one Huffington Post article that was skeptical of this claim but just about every other entry on my google search seems to think that Israel got this one right. I have become skeptical of most claims that fit the standard good guy / bad guy narrative.

  28. outthere says:

    The Deep State’s Bogus ‘Iranian Threat’
    by David Stockman Posted on October 14, 2017
    Thursday we identified a permanent fiscal crisis as one of the quadruple witching forces arising in October 2017 which will shatter the global financial bubble. Today the Donald is on the cusp of making the crisis dramatically worse by decertifying the Iranian nuke deal, thereby reinforcing another false narrative that enables the $1 trillion Warfare State to continue bleeding the nation’s fiscal solvency.
    In a word, the whole notion that Iran is a national security threat and state sponsor of terrorism is just as bogus as the Russian meddling story or the claim that the chain of events resulting from the coup d’ etat fostered by Washington on the streets of Kiev in February 2014 is evidence of Russian expansionism and aggression.
    more here

  29. Babak Makkinejad says:

    I think Trump reflects very well a segment of Fly-Over America; I have personally many such people; the same bluster, the same aggressiveness, the same exaggerated sense of power, and the same belief in their capacity to dominate and win.

  30. Babak Makkinejad says:

    Trump and the 2 houses of US Congress represent the true interests of people of the United States.
    Trump has stated that he hates this cease-fire deal and wants to exit it as quickly as possible. He is being true also to his Fly-Over America constituency who hate Islam and specially hate Iran.

  31. Babak Makkinejad says:

    EU will not go to a trade wsr with US.

  32. ToivoS says:

    The problem with your suggestion is that it requires the EU to defy the US hegemon. This requires a major change in EU policy. I certainly think that the European nations should act in their own interests and it would be in their interests to avoid getting involved in another ME war. However, their default position is to remain subservient to the US.
    If Trump’s irrational acts serve to provoke a divorce between the US and EU then perhaps having Trump as president has served one good purpose. It is certainly my reason for voting for Trump — our politics are so broken that it was time to just throw a monkey wrench into the gears and bring it to a halt. However, it does require that Europe is willing to assert its independence. It is problematic that they can do that.

  33. NancyK says:

    When everything comes to a halt, you have yourself to blame, but for those of us not willing to throw out the baby with the bathwater why exactly do we have to suffer for your mistake.

  34. kooshy says:

    Babak I have no doubt or question that Trump and congress “represent” interests of United States, but representing someone and making choices and decisions in their (constituency) interests and benefits is two different things. IMO, multiple US administrations due to various reasons have not made right choices /decisions/ policies that has benefited the American’ interests.

  35. ISL says:

    I am saddened at the poor quality of propaganda that we tax payers overpay for.
    I expect Iran will rapidly move closer to Russia (building on the positive outcome of efforts in Syria as ameliorating prior bad blood). And also purchase additional S-400s. I would not rule out a Russian base in Iran in the next few years – as noted elsewhere, Trump is proving the US is not agreement capable.
    Any thoughts by the SST committee on what happens if Iran was protected under advanced EW – including blanking of satellite communication, given that the US must operate from over the horizon (given the likelihood that Iraq would no to US use of its bases for an attack) given the narrowness and shallowness of the nearby water bodies, could loss of communication cripple a US airborne attack?
    A very dangerous outcome as it would almost certainly lead to escalation and US land invasion to fill the vacuum, which I see no way for the US to afford – while the US played its deadly “Great Game” in Iraq, China went from a tenth the US economy to parity. When China is 10 times the size of the US economy, the lingua fraca will be Chinese, not English, the US will not be allowed to play war games in the Pacific, and I would expect efforts to destabilize the US into smaller cantons while assassin drones fly our skies. Meanwhile our (traitorous) 1% will have evacuated to New Zealand along with all the US wealth they can move to swiss banks.
    For GDP trends, see:

  36. ISL says:

    On the guardian plot, try putting in a reasonable yuan appreciation (10%) as the economic center of gravity shifts decisively to China.

  37. Peter AU says:

    Google search brings up “most viewed, most liked” ect. Easily manipulated.
    I use yandex search for anything political. Brings up closest match.

  38. kooshy says:

    Mike, IMO Iran and US can have a lot better relation and many common commercial, political and trade interests, if US was allowed to pursue her IMO correct interests. But your are right that this opinion does not go well with neo-conservative thinking and agenda. Nevertheless I am too ordinary/common to be worthy of their label. Like the late (johnny come lately) Christopher Hitchens, you bot well for independent Kurdistan at least on this site.

  39. Ishmael Zechariah says:

    I have noticed several intimations by hillary supporters that, had The Donald not been elected, peace would have ruled the planets. Would anyone care to comment on the veracity of this claim? IMO poplars might have started sprouting in various parts of the world had “hillary of Libya and Syria” been elected.
    I am puzzled.
    Ishmael Zechariah

  40. Babak Makkinejad says:

    It is your opinion against those of the duely and legally elected and seated representatives of the American people. Those also decided that there was a margin for US in sanctioning Russia. Who are we to argue with those decisions of the collective preferences of the people of the United States?

  41. outthere says:

    Tony Blair has said for the first time that he and other world leaders were wrong to yield to Israeli pressure to impose an immediate boycott of Hamas after the Islamic faction won Palestinian elections in 2006.
    As prime minister at the time, Blair offered strong support for the decision – driven by the George W Bush White House – to halt aid to, and cut off relations with, the newly elected Hamas-led Palestinian Authority unless it agreed to recognise Israel, renounce violence and abide by previous agreements between its Fatah predecessors and Israel. The ultimatum was rejected by Hamas. The elections were judged free and fair by international monitors.”
    . . .
    “But obviously it was very difficult, the Israelis were very opposed to it.”

  42. ISL says:

    IZ, as far as I can tell, whereas there has been a lot of posturing and twittering and showing of the flag, The Donald has not (yet) caused a significant change in the amount of war going on. The Hillary was quite a (all options on the table) posturer too.
    In fact, as ISIS is mopped up, one could argue that there currently is less war during The Donald’s presidency to date.
    One could even credit The Donald with this peace outbreak if one ignores Russia (the Hill-bots would declaim that Russia (I mean Putin personally) is too busy masterfully manipulating everything with a few facebook ads to have played any role in the collapse of ISIS in Syria – its all due to the noble efforts of the good jihadi’s we have been arming – ignoring how they frequently swap with bad jihadi’s to ask for new weapons to replace this just swapped to the baddies by the swap. . .)

  43. mike says:

    Kooshy –
    What does ‘… you bot well…’ mean???
    I am no fan of Hitchens. His support of the Iraq War was ridiculous. And his criticism of religion was not to my taste either.
    I agree that the USA and Iran have many common interests. Not just the commercial. Both countries are involved in fighting Daesh and al Quaeda. We should be natural allies. The reason we are not allies most probably dates to the 444 days that American diplomats and citizens spent as hostages in Iran. Or the killing of 241 U.S. Marines, 58 French peacekeepers, and six civilians in 1983. I personally knew one of those that died. But all of that was several decades ago as Publius Tacitus pointed out. There should be no reason why we should not put that behind us. We put our disputes with Stalin aside in order to defeat Hitler. The British put aside their dispute with Jan Smuts, a Boer commando leader who contributed to the death of thousands of British citizens, and they eventually made him a Field Marshall in the British Army. There are a thousand more examples in history. We should work together. Daesh and al Quaeda are not going away even after they are defeated in Iraq and Syria. There are chapters in Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt, Somalia, Yemen, the Philippines, Indonesia and many other places.

  44. Christian Chuba says:

    1. The Iranians have an aversion to foreign military bases, they even have a clause in their constitution forbidding it.
    2. The Russians might assist w/satellite communications but interestingly enough, this is the primary purpose of Iran’s space program. Of course, western Intelligence accuses them of using this to cover up ‘ICBM development’ which is total nonsense. They have used rockets to launch satellites into low earth orbit at 300 miles. Sigh, the problem with us always being in Information War mode is that we actually believe the garbage that we spew out.
    BTW I cannot believe the shameless morons we have in our MSM who repeat stuff like this …
    ‘Trump isn’t pulling out of the deal, he is just giving it to Congress who is strictly dealing with U.S. law to make requirements that can trigger sanctions if the Iranians don’t accept them’
    I’m dizzy from the spin, they are making sound like Iran is breaking the agreement. If the U.S. does not uphold its side of the pact then we are responsible for breaking the agreement. It is not ‘just an issue of U.S. law’. Seriously these people are morons.

  45. outthere says:

    After 2001, Bush included the Islamic Republic in what he called the “axis of evil”, which included Iraq and North Korea. In 2003 the US was on Iran’s border, having just successfully invaded a member of that “axis”. It was then that Iran offered the US a comprehensive negotiation proposal, where the Islamic Republic was willing to open its nuclear programme for inspections, work as a partner to stabilise Iraq, and cooperate against fighting al-Qaeda, offering Washington then what Trump asks of Iran now.
    The response to the offer from the office of Vice President Dick Cheney allegedly was, “We don’t talk to evil.”
    What Trump’s decision on Iran will mean for the world
    Sajjad Safaei
    by Sajjad Safaei

  46. DianaLC says:

    Thank you for the detailed explanation of this situation with regard to Iran.
    I particularly liked the analogy of our rancorous relationship with Iran to that of a nasty divorce.
    I remember bumper stickers after Reagan’s election. They said, “Reagan for Shah!” It seemed at the time that the young and idealist groups were for the revolution in Iran and against the Shah.
    I understand that the Shah had not necessarily ruled well. But I was also confused that we should take sides at all, especially for the religiously intolerant mullahs.
    Again, I am left with only one course of action: To pray hard to God that “thy will be done on earth, as it is in Heaven.”
    I also pray for God to provide the best guidance for our leaders. It’s all I can do.

  47. daemon says:

    Plenty of excuses being made for Donald Trump. He’s been perfectly clear about his plans to get rid of the Iran deal since before the election. It has nothing to do with neocons or Nikki Haley or anyone.
    The biggest reason he’s against Iran is because Obama was for the deal. It doesn’t get any more complicated than that. You are all wasting your words trying to analyze this.

  48. Bandolero says:

    Babak, ToivoS
    Some years ago I would have agreed that the EU would avoid a trade war with the US over Iran at any cost. However times have changed.
    The EU so far still takes the injury inflicted by the US Congress slapping secondary sanctions on Iran and Russia. The EU doesn’t act on secondary non-nuclear US sanctions hitting Iranian, U.S. and EU businesses. However, I think, slapping nuclear related sanctions on Iran in violation of UN security council resultion 2231 would add too much insult to injury to bear for the EU. I think everyone in politics understands that after the JCPOA the US Congress can slap any sanctions on Iran using non-nuclear pretexts, but slapping the very same sanctions on a nuclear pretext would just be a deliberate break of international law.
    The popular Obama could get all what he wanted from the EU and Germany, but with Trump I don’t think that’s the case. Trump is really unpopular in Europe, and especially in Germany, who just elected someone President who called Trump a hate preacher. The German government takes a hard stance against any violation of the Iran deal. and all the opposition parties hold the same line, and keeping the Iran deal is very popular in EU’s economic powerhouse Germany. And Trump is really unpopular in the EU and Germany. Have a look at some pew figures from the summer:
    Confidence in the US president “to do the right thing” dropped from Obamas 86% to 11% under Trump in Germany. With such numbers, the idea that Trump – and Bibi, and King Salman – could rally the Germans against the JCPOA and international law is just ridicolous.
    Unlike Trump, the JCPOA is really popular in Germany.

  49. kooshy says:

    Well said IMO JCPOA is meaningless and not necessary without US participation, as Babak says the ceasefire was between US and Iran, is the US’ secondary sanctions that will affect the EU trade with Iran, Chinese or Russians have no sanctions against Iran so why should it matter if they stay or leave, is the US’ secondary banking sanctions which the non sovereign europe must follow if they don’t one to pay billions in fines. Therefore if US for any reason is not in the deal Europe will have to follow which makes the deal dead. Iran, Russia and China don’t need to have a ceasefire deal among themselves. At the end of the day Europe ends up paying the biggest economic prize, and I don’t think leaving the deal makes much effect on Iran and it’s economy that is, since economic effects of JCPOA never came to be fully implemented in Iran, especially the banking part.

  50. kooshy says:

    From what I read in Iranian news sites, this did not make much of worry or a shock. Sounds like this was very much anticipated by the government and the financial sector, as matter of fact according to news sites, price of US dollar dropped, and Iran’s markets had some gain in their indexes.

  51. kooshy says:

    Mike can you also name a few of Iranian grievances with past US actions ? if not you should read Rouhani’s
    yesterday speech in reply to president Trump’s on decertifying JCPOA . if you don’t remember them I can have them listed.

  52. kooshy says:

    Babak, check again, Indeed I did say IMO

  53. outthere says:

    Please explain what you mean by “prior bad blood” between Russia and Syria. There must be something I am missing.
    Russia has had a naval base in Syria for a long time. There are more Syrians married to Russians than to any other nationality.

  54. Laura says:

    kooshy…Yes, the President and Congress are supposed to act/represent “in the national interest.” OUR nation. Not Israel’s interest. Ours. I hope someone in the GOP remembers this in time.

  55. ToivoS says:

    My mistake? What was pretty clear is that Hillary was advocating war with
    Russia. Did you pay any attention that Hillary was pushing for a no fly zone over Syria? There were Russian aircraft over Syria. Hillary if president would be pushing for war with the Russian airforce over Syria. Nope silly fool, we are better off with Trump.

  56. mike says:

    Kooshy –
    I know there are grievances on both sides. IMO they should be put aside by each. We don’t have to be friends. But why should we be enemies over past differences. Are Americans and Iranians that vengeful? Unfortunately there are hardliners on both sides. Trump’s latest antic will give power to the hardliners in Tehran. And that will probably give more influence here in this country to our hardliners. It is a vicious circle.
    PS – You never explained the meaning of the expression ‘… you bot well…’ What does it mean?

  57. mike says:

    NancyK –
    Let him blather. No amount of discussion will change closed minds.

  58. ISL says:

    Christian Chuba,
    Perhaps Iran could 20 year lease an island in the Iran Bay to Russia at which point it would not be (temporarily) Iranian territory. I agree that would be a very difficult step to take, but I would argue that depends on the geopolitics, and stranger things have happened.
    I was referencing using Russian EW technology to electronically blind (including leo orbit US satellites) a large-scale US airborne attack on Iran, which would have to be launched from over the horizon since aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf are sitting ducks and its a thousand kilometers from UAE to Tehran.

  59. Anna says:

    The convergence:
    “As Alain of Lille said as long ago as the 12th century, “not God, not Caesar, but money is all.”

  60. Fred says:

    The revisionist history they are putting out now serves as fine distractions to the Je Suis Harvey politicians and entertainers now running as fast from the sexual predator as possible. Hilary would have intervened in Syria and lord only knows what she would have given up to Kim Jong-Un.

  61. Fred says:

    It’s a shame those 53.9% didn’t read the Constitution or have any better understanding of it than Hilary’s or her campaign staff, otherwise they would understand why the electoral college exists.

  62. Cortes says:

    It most likely predates this.
    I recall being harangued by a largely pro western Iranian refugee from the Khomeini regime circa 1981/2 in Oxford about my personal responsibility for this baby:
    (Disclaimer: around that time my grandparents were eking out a living from a smallholding in Ireland and doing seasonal harvest work for bigger farmers in Scotland).

  63. Christian Chuba says:

    ISL, I understand that you were just pointing out some areas where Russia and Iran might collaborate on common defense. I only mentioned the military base thing because I was surprised to learn how sensitive Iran was regarding this issue, more so than most countries.
    When Russia had a minor arrangement with Iran just to let their planes land and refuel in their country so that they could carry out operations in Syria, they made the mistake of calling it a ‘base’. Iran promptly rescinded the agreement. They allowed operations again at a later date but lesson learned, don’t say you have a military base in Iran. This sensitivity surprised me. A Neocon writer clucked that this could be used to drive a wedge between Iran and Russia and mentioned the Iranian Constitution, I double checked, and for once a neocon was correct.

    Article 146 [No Foreign Military Bases
    “…[F]oreign military bases in Iran, even for peaceful purposes, is forbidden.”

    This tells me that Iranians are very sensitive around issues regarding national sovereignty.
    If we stir up trouble by trying to install MEK, regardless of how they feel about their govt, they won’t greet us as liberators.

  64. kooshy says:

    Iranian Gov. Military already got in lot of trouble criticism this year for allowing Russian planes to refuel in way to Syria. Iranian Constitution is very restrict and clear allowing/leasing any foreign military on Iranian soil. IMO, in subconscious fiercely nationalistic and very proud mentality of Iranians, having a foreign military based in Iran means/equates to Iran incapable of defending herself.

  65. TV says:

    Iran has a national holiday: “Death to America” day.

  66. Babak Makkinejad says:

    You are lying.

  67. Pacifica Advocate says:

    >>>No amount of discussion will change closed minds.
    This is far more apropos of you and NancyK than it is of ToiVos.
    Look at H. Clinton’s war record as Sec. of State. Look at how many “successes” and “failures” she had. Look at how many successes she claimed. Look at who, in her D.C. entourage, profited from it–and how much.
    Then, carefully review her rhetoric regarding Syria and the no-fly-zone even before the campaign officially began. The “no-fly zone” policy was clearly stated, and logged as an “official protest” against Obama.
    So I’ll be curious to hear what your opinions are on Ms. Clinton after you bother with taking a close, careful review of her record on Honduras (a blatantly illegal coup which she protected and personally provided legal representation for), Libya (a war that was almost entirely initiated through her own backroom shenanigans: Obama didn’t want to go in, and initially refused to approve it), Egypt, Lebanon (how many cluster bombs did we ship special-order to Israel in the closing days of that war? Do you remember what they were used for?), Syria, and of course, Ukraine–were you aware that Vicky “Fuck the EU” Nuland was Ms. Clinton’s fixer, there?
    If, after reminding yourself of all the war-news you chose to ignore during that period, you can seriously make the argument that her “no-fly zone” wasn’t a sincere commitment to a policy direction then I’ll be very interested to learn what your logic is based on–because it certainly won’t be her record as Sec. of State.

  68. Pacifica Advocate says:

    Hillary Clinton was also pushing for direct conflict with Iran.
    Ms. Clinton’s position on Iran was essentially the same as Trump’s:
    And of course, throughout her political lifetime she has always favored the most extremely aggressive talk of pretty much any politician out there, when it comes to Iran. Just for fun, read on through to the end and count the number of contradictions this article implies about Clinton’s own position vis a vis her criticisms of Obama–on the one hand, she prances around throwing out the word “obliterate” on behalf of her Israeli backers, and on the other hand she chastises Obama for suggesting that it might be a good idea to take out important people in the pro-terrorist Taliban junta that hides amongst the Pakistanis–obviously, in service to her Saudi backers, there.
    She should’ve done us all a favor and just put a big “FOR SALE!” sign up, with a list of races and ethnicities that will be forbidden service. Perhaps if she’d been honest enough to do that, she’d’ve gotten elected.

  69. mike says:

    Babak Makkinejad –
    Looks like Britain and Germany are staying with JCPOA. Good for them IMO for standing up to Trump. Looks like Oilman and Bandolero and others here were correct in there assessment.
    But even if the EU had knuckled under to the knucklehead, Tehran still would have had China, Russia, Turkey, Iraq, India and others. So any sanctions would have been useless and self defeating for the US and EU.

  70. mike says:

    Pacifica –
    I have admired many of your comments here in the past. Excepting your politics I should have said. Clinton favored JCPOA. That is a matter of public record. No-one disputes that except perhaps for her political enemies. First they called her an appease-nik for supporting it. Now they claim she never supported it.
    Libya was done by Obama at the behest of the Europeans. Did Clinton speak out against it? No, but neither did Trump. As a matter of fact he was for it, big time, despite lying about his support for it during the GOP primary:
    As for Clinton’s call for a no-fly-zone, Trump right now has a no-fly-zone in northern Syria. They just call it by a different name – de-escalation lines or zones instead of no-fly-zones.

  71. mike says:

    Fred –
    Kooshy and I were not discussing the election. We were discussing whether the American people knew that Trump’s arsekissing of Israel was or was not in the interest of United States.
    But thanks for the Civic Education lecture.

  72. Babak Makkinejad says:

    Thank you for your comments.
    In 2015, I thought that JCPOA had removed the major impediments for US-Iran strategic negotiations; the acceptance by the United States of all Iranian nuclear activities within NPT.
    Evidently, the United States is toying with the prospect of reneging on that agreement. If that is indeed the case, then I agree with you, it is an injurious course for the United States as well as others – foes or friends of Iran or US.
    Even the Arabs, now cut-off even more from the source of their culture and civilization, are not going to come out of a renewed confrontation between US and Iran, unscathed.

  73. Kooshy says:

    Mike one of my friends in France tells me, yes the Total contract may survive since it is based on Euro and Yuan,chines will do the construction parts in thier currency and French do thier part in euro. But he don’t think the Airbus deal and anything uses American tech. can not survive, if the secondary sanctions are not reintroduced.

  74. mike says:

    James –
    I am not a fan of regime change. I believe the coup against Mossadegh in 53 was a bad mistake. Done by the CIA at the bidding of your Commonwealth brothers in MI-6 as they had been thrown out of the country. If Mossadegh and his secular National Front had not been overthrown perhaps the Revolution of 79 would not have happened? Or perhaps it was destined regardless? Maybe Kooshy or Babak M could weigh in on that?
    I’m a lefty, I like what I have read of many of Mossadegh’s policies, not his political alliance with the Tudeh though. Wiki says Mossadegh remains one of the most popular figures in Iran. However his National Front was outlawed by the Ayatollahs within two years after the 79 revolution. Too secular I suppose. If Mossadegh was alive today I have to wonder if he would be in Evin prison, or at least under house arrest.

  75. Anna says:
    “Last weekend saw Ukraine’s biggest Nazi march of modern times. On Saturday night, up to 20,000 far-right radicals honored the 75th anniversary of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) – a paramilitary group, led by Stepan Bandera and Andriy Melnyk, which actively collaborated with Hitler’s Germany. They brandished lit torches, smoke pellets, and flares as they chanted fascist slogans. And some participants openly gave Nazi salutes during the rally. The leaders of the procession included Oleg Tyahnybok, an associate of US Senators John McCain. and Chris Murphy, who has called for Ukraine to do more to halt the “criminal activities” of “organized Jewry.” Earlier in the day, Ukraine’s President Petro Poroshenko said the actions of the UPA fighters would always remain an “inspiration” and an example for future generations. This conduct included the slaughter of tens of thousands of Jews and Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia from 1943 to 1944.”
    Nulandistan of Kagans in Ukraine keeps up on amusing. And McCain fame keeps on with expanding.

  76. Pacifica Advocate says:

    Hmmm….I’m now responding to “mike” –
    Can’t choose a more inconsequential and irrelevant online name than that one, no? Most of us who want to hide behind a pseudonym–and do note, that’s a time-honored and time-tested term-of-the-trade, going back to Shakespeare (whom we’re still in debate over)–at least choose something that will be…eh…memorable?
    But…mike? Fucking…mike?
    But let’s set that aside. For now, let’s just focus on this bit:
    >>>I have admired many of your comments here in the past. Excepting your politics I should have said.
    I’m curious, here, about what you think “politics” means–exactly?
    Would you care to elaborate on that bit of rhetoric?
    Most people conflate “comments” with “political orientation”–but apparently, you think a “comment” can be adulated without regard to its political affiliation?
    Am I accurate, in that estimation?
    My guess is that if the Col. posts this comment, then you will likely never again appear on SST. I may be wrong in that, but then, I have lost to voices far more articulate than thee.

  77. Pacifica Advocate says:

    This letter seems to make your argument much better than you do.
    Noticeably, it is written by a guy who worked in Bill Clinton’s White House. Also, noticeably: it is written by a Neocon. Also, noticeably: it is written by a guy who has dual Israeli-American citizenship, and is an ardent “Destroy Syria, replace it with ISIS” kind-of-argument:
    Notably, “James Rubin” went through a media washing where he suddenly became “Jamie Rubin” – oddly enough.
    Would you care to extrapolate on why:
    A) “James Rubin” felt he needed to change his name, and
    B) “Jamie Rubin” felt like he needed a name change?
    Regardless: you’re making the same agruments as he did. Just curiously: your name is “mike”–are you James/Jamie Rubin, by any chance?

  78. Pacifica Advocate says:

    >>>As for Clinton’s call for a no-fly-zone, Trump right now has a no-fly-zone in northern Syria. They just call it by a different name – de-escalation lines or zones instead of no-fly-zones.
    I am salivating over the takedown that TTG or Patrick should give you…sadly, I am–like the over-eager dog–well-aware that my tastes will not be satisfied.

  79. mike says:

    Pacifica Advocate –
    Colonel Lang, our host here, calls his site a “Committee of Correspondence”. He likens it to a collegial discussion of issues.
    I am against regime change and have not advocated for it. It is true I prefer the the city and regional councils being set up by the PYD and their SDF allies in northern Syria to Damascus. But I also prefer county and state governments here in this country over Washington DC. But why that should chap your arse I have no idea.
    Sorry my political leanings offend you. I’ve been insulted by Democrats when I registered as a Republican in North Carolina in the early 1960s. And insulted by Nixonites when I switched to Independent in the 70s. And then insulted by Reaganites in 84 when I refused to vote again for the great communicator and registered Democratic. But please be a little more creative if you continue to choose to throw insults. I have already heard much better zingers.

Comments are closed.