Blog
Comments
Fred 's Recent Blogs
Iranians, hate & Israel tide / video
Fred | 4 years ago
4 1113
Thank you Trump/video
Fred | 4 years ago
11 1111
Misogynist Western women against Iranian women /video
Fred | 4 years ago
2 997
As Gaza Faces Famine, Israel Cuts Ties with UNRWA and U.S. Halts Funding for Critical Aid Agency
Viroon | 4 hours ago
0 37
Category: None
Iran's Silent Crisis: The Systematic Oppression of Azerbaijanis
Viroon | 4 hours ago
0 18
Category: None
Please wake me up when MOABs start falling on Ali Khayeh-Many's residence!!!
Few hours ago Trump signed the newest sanctions package, which identifies Islamist fascists’ Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist entity.
For those who abhor war, this is a good start, much more needed to get to the needed airtight sanctions, which will collapse the entire unreformable, warmongering cabal.
Let's see how seyed Kha Kha and Javad jigool and their team of Thieves and charlattans will decide to "retaliate" against this move.
Your move bastards.
Javad Jigool would throw Ali Khayeh-Many under the bus the moment the US troops land at the Mehrabad airport in Tehran! I hear Trita and Hooman are getting engaged soon!
Fred & Co: You know I have a lot of respect for you and your point of view; but you do have to be fair and decent and ask what policy options were/are truly available to Obama and others before and after him. (1) At the end of the day, there are MORE options for the U.S. with a denuclearized Iran, than one that has nuclear war heads - that is a fact. (2) Committing US troops on the ground in Syria or elsewhere after the debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan was not palatable politically, economically, etc. etc. So then I wonder, what specific policy reccomendations you might have? I mean, what would you do different? In my estimation, sanctions actually help Iran and helps the regime to stay in power, and ultimately leads to even more integration between Iran and Russia/China etc. (I will write a blog about it) - which is a policy you have reccomended. There are very few good options here...and you have to be realistic. The U.S. keeps making the wrong policy decisions... everything from (1) toppling the shah and supporting the rise of the Mullahs in 79, to (2) precipitating the Iran-Iraq war (which united Iranians behind the mullahs, and handed Iraqi opposition to Saddam to Iran, who later took control of Iraq politically after the U.S. invasion), to (3) Invading Iraq ... which was idiotic now in retrospect (from the U.S. perspective but great for Iran's Mullahs), to (4) Financing and supporting the rise of ISIS - which has backfired ... every decision/strategy U.S. employs in the region is backfiring and backfiring badly. Lets not forget Osama Bin Laden was a CIA golden boy!! So the question is, what would you do different? (I have my own ideas, but I would like to hear yours).
It is a fallacy of false dilemma to give the options of confronting Islamist fascists with nuke or without it through Obama’s faulty nuke deal.
As Senator Corker very clearly and succinctly says in the video, at the very best, Obama’s faulty nuke deal with the lifetime Führer of the warmongering Islamists fascists allows them to break out in 8 years and even Obama admitted, albeit saying in ten years or so.
Also, with Islamist fascists keeping their entire nuke bomb making apparatus guarantees the neighboring countries to go for nuke as well.
Before the warmongering, expansionist Islamist fascists become another nuke power N. Korea, this one in the heart of the world’s energy source, it has to be confronted and defanged. The best option being helping Iranian people to do it by weakening the Islamist fascists with airtight sanctions like the one did in the despicable Apartheid in S. Africa.
Since islamsits fascists have proven to be reform proof, the alternative not only holds no better future for the hapless Iranian people than that of North Koreans, it guarantees more bloodshed, mayhem and war as it has been ever since they took over Iran.
Inspector
Tee tee and Hoomie are Massage buddies and have decided to remain so for the time being.
And here, for a change, a news to cheer up the NIACi crowd and all their spare user IDs here:
"Yesterday. in a hotel room in Istanbul, Turkey, Sed Javad zarif, was allowed to shake the dick of foreign minister of saudi Arabia for 10 minutes"!!!!
The Question is how many of these Anti-Trump foot soldiers' names are on the list to attent the fake and chelokabab-based Inaugurationn ceremony on Saturday of COmard Rohani?
I mean all this chestbeating for IRI and "Trump Shmrump" has to pay some dividend....
Any info?
Fred, any objective analysis of the impact of sanctions would tell you that they are basically ineffective in forcing any meaningful change. Sanctions have not changed Cuba, nor North Korea. And if you read papers on South Africa and what was once Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) you will learn too, that sanctions did NOT precipirate the end of apartheid. Iran, having been under sanctions for decades has developed many other ways to do business outside of the sanctions regime. So if your goal is to get rid of the regime in Tehran, then sanctions wont do it. Bullet proof, air tight sanctions wont do it... BUT it will create misery among ordinary Iranians and the regime will blame the U.S. all the way, creating more polarization and hatred... which ultimately is counterporoductive.
Sanctions are the wrong policy, UNLESS, the goal is to invade Iran, in which case you don't want U.S. companies entangled in Iran with assets, investements etc. when your goal is to bomb everything.
So outsiide of sanctions, what can you offer as an effective policy for change?
I think the answer is nothing.
So as Obama said, clearly the policy on Cuba has not worked for 50 years, why pursue the same policy? Why not consider a different approach?
The case on Cuba is a littel different by the way to Iran. If Cuba is opened up, the U.S. would have a low cost tourist destination very close to Florida, and opening Cuba up, would devastate the Florida tourist trade. So even, after recognizing that Cuba policy has not worked, they new 'deal' is to save Florida from a much lower cost competitor. Sanctions TODAY, serve a completely different purpose than when they enacted them in the past.
With Iran, IN FACT, the U.S. policy is very counter productive. The U.S. actually needs Iran to stabilize Afghanistan and Iraq. The U.S. wants to stop the cash spend and hemorfhage there after 16 years of war. U.S. allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia, on the other hand do not want any U.S. engagement with Iran - which serves their own narrow purpose, but is NOT in U.S. interests. U.S. has interests also in containing Chinese expansionism in Central Asia, which again Iran can assist with. Bottom-line, increased polarization with Iran doesn't serve U.S. interests... and only serves to bolster others.
U.S. has everything to lose and nothing to gain with its current policies.
So what all this leaves, is ONE option, and that is if they want Iran back in their sphere, U.S. will invade. And this, my friend, would be a disaster not just for Iranians, but also the U.S. If America can't stabilize Afghanistan after 1 trillion dollars there and 16 years, how are they going to win in Iran with 8x the population and a better armed and trained military?
Like the Military brass keep telling the Whitehouse, there isn't a clear strategy for the region, and U.S. is spinning wheels. And the current (Trump) administration's approach is completely wrong and off-base and counter to U.S. national interests... and by the way Iranian (the people of Iran's) interests. Its a lose-lose outcome.
I can think of other ways to approach the situation, but your blog and your response to my question, I do not think provide a 'strategy', a 'path' to success for anyone. A whole new approach is needed.