Well you have to ask these questions to obama and U.S government, but as far as sanctins works U,S senate get it I am assuming you want U.S senate to sanctions U.S president and his administration then because they are the guilty party in here!

Those 'sanctions' will keep the akhoondi regime in power for the next 50 years at least.

When people are hungry and desperate, they have no choice but to rely on their governments to provide the basic means of survival and they have no time to go on strike for months at a time to overthrow a regime. We, with our comfortable lives in the west, don't understand this.

But the people of North Korea do. The people of Cuba know this as well. We sanctioned and blockaded those poor people into such a state of despair that they had no choice but to turn to their regimes and beg for a handout just to survive another day. Forget 'revolution'.

Revolutions happen when there is high morale among the opposition for victory. Its like a war. Starving, desperate soldiers don't win battles. They lose all will to fight and go home.

But I also understand that the nations which fund our 'opposition' would never tolerate these arguments. Thats why they love the Mojaheddin Islamist/Marxist cult, because they are willing to support any sanction or war on Iranians.

These countries will also not hesitate to put all of their resources to work in order to maintain the sanctions. That includes having their employees attack anyone who questions their strategy. This includes THE CROWN PRINCE HIMSELF!

Think about it. When 'monarchists' themselves start to speak about Reza Pahlavi as if he were just some shmuck from down the street, forget it. Its over.

P.S. Anyone who wishes to address these issues should simply grow a little KHAAYEH and put it out there instead of writing little nonsensical emails to JJ while he is trying to get some relaxation finally after 15 years of mediating between cry baby children who run to the principle every time something is out of alignment.

I'm not referring to MRX or FRED here by the way. Sorry for jumping into your thread like that fred.

Dear Fred.

First, let me thank you for yet another good and informative blog.

Second, On the sanctions side, I am fully with you. It was the sanctions which brought the terrorist ayatollahs to the negotiation table on their knees, without a full scale war against our homeland Iran. The fact Obama could not take advantage of  this situation is another story. So the sanctionbs should be re instated as soon as Obama is out of office. They should be re instated harder and tighter than before. So hard and tight, that Terrorist Mullahs chief political whore in washington DC, aka Trita "bi-pedar" Parsi and his $7/h team of cyber click whores whould scream with pain and anger!

Your point Arvandrud is quite valid, When a person is hungry he or she is looking for food, the last thing on their mind is to organize some sort of uprising and establish deomcracy or whatever fad that has become big among the Iranian ex-pats now and days!

Fred and company ( All the folks that use same user name fred and blog 365/24/7) put several blogs each day and the colution for any issue and any of the blogs are for U.S senate to do some sort of sanctions, of course no mention agniast whom and what and what if anything it is going to achive, so in a sense it is "tekrar mokararat"!

MRX ofcourse you understand what is really going on here. These sanctions were never for 'regime change', they were so that the countries in the region would never have to compete with Iran economically or politically ever again, regardless of who runs the country. 

I want my country free of these mullahs. I don't give a damn about Hezbollah, Syria, arabs, Israel, fucking Houthis or whatever the hell else those other countries have a problem with. I don't want to hear any nonsense about Israel being afraid of 'Iran's nukes' because we all know they can smash Iran's military easily. They do not fear Iran.

But what really gets me is when I think about how much patience JJ must have to have let these people just basically run his site for him for what? almost 2 decades now? These trolls insult our intelligence as Iranians on a daily basis. They call for Iran to be nuked. They openly speak of Reza Pahlavi as if he were a clown. They hold the ENTIRE Iranian nation accountable for the fact that their minority group was harassed after the revolution and 'the moozlims didn't help them'. Well guess what? We were all going through hell then. I'm sorry for their fucking loss!

Hamal. nobody gives a damn about your insignificant Islamist MEK cult. You and the other couple of halfwits here have been trolling JJ's sites for how many years now?

"Hamal. nobody gives a damn about your insignificant Islamist MEK cult. You and the other couple of halfwits here have been trolling JJ's sites for how many years now"

Why are NIAC  lobby  cyber operatives resort to personal attacks instead  respecting different opinions or debating in a civilized manner?

a) This is the outcome of growing up not knowing their fathers!

b) What do you expect from a $7/h cyber whore of Terrorist ayatollahs?!

c) Blame their cult leader, that whore of ali khamenei, Trita Parsi!

d) all above!

:))))

d)

As always, you can vent your anger against what I believe and say in any which way you want, it only tells me I’m on the right path and the foul-mouth commenter does not have a valid counter argument, ergo resorts to cursing.

However, please stop personal attacks against each other, if it makes you feel better, go for nondescript attacks.

Your other username hammal called me a whore and when I try to respond you leave his comment up but delete mine?

I only respond to personal attacks in kind.

P.S. You have no valid argument. Stop being cowards who block and delete other views and pretend you are 'the victim'. 

Dear Fred.

All these personal attacks on you and your readership have one common goal.  To prevent we Iranians freely exchange ideas. to debate and to expose the crimes of the terrorist Mullahs and their west residing lackeys. This is a known tactic used by the terrorist , child killing warmongering Islamist rulers of Iran and their washington based lackeys in  NIAC.

But we shall not be silenced!

Back to the topic of this fine blog which IRI mercenaries are trying to distract from, the secret nature of all these billions  of dollars being given to the terrorist rulers of Iran  tells us that Obama admin itself is sio ashamed of letting these terrorists Mullahs have all this money to be  later used to  kill and terrorize innocent Americans, Iranians, Syrians and Europeans.

I actually openly supported Fred's blogs in the past and I do read them. I only mentioned that the sanctions have a different purpose than to ultimately free Iran from mullah rule. They were designed to make the other countries in the region secure in the knowledge that Iran will never economically or politically challenge them ever again, regardless of who rules the country.

As for Hamal's personal attacks.

He/she goes around here calling every other user a 'cyber click whore' and other nasty insults. He finally came across someone that can easily play that same game and do it even better. At this point he quickly pulled Fred into his little alliance getting Fred involved in something Hamal started in the first place. He even had Fred go so far as to delete my replies to Hamal and create a sort of alternate version where Hamal is just so 'witty' that I apparently seem not to know how to respond.

Finally, 'deleting comments' while leaving others, 'voting down' while staying anonymous, blocking, sending crybaby emails to JJ, are all the actions of someone who is trying to shut down other points of view while promoting their own. 

The alternative to sanctions are war, a "Grand Bargain", the status quo, or doing business with the Mollahs, the IRGC, and their "fak-o-fameel", who dominate the economy. Don't sanctions seem like the least bad policy?

Sad truth and bottom line that everyone needs to come to terms with: The IR is here to stay for at least the next couple of generations in Iran. It's not going anywhere. The reasons for that are many, including Iranians' inherent lack of balls and courage, Iranians' low IQ and lack of dignity and self respect, Iran being just another religious, backward, third world Middle Eastern country, lack of a culture of liberal democracy in Iran or the incompatibility of democracy with the Iranian culture, George W. Bush's f**k ups that essentially set the whole Middle East on fire, lack of an effective opposition to IR -inside or outside of Iran--, and many other national and/or international factors. So, everyone might as well "jaamesh-kon" as we say, do business with the IR, and at least make some money. End of the story.   

Dear AO, that may very well be valid and true. In which case, those who pretend to be opposed to the IRI should just come out and say, let's do business with the mollahs. 

Sadly AO's observation to a large degree are correct in this matter. As for Sanctions it did not remve Sadam, Ghadafi, fidel, IRI,North Korea,  Russian advanture to Ukraine and so on. its just a feel good policy for some people and for others to make money from Sanctions!  

As for these numbers $400 million, $1.7 biillion, blah, blah that the 7/24/365 blogger in this site keeps mentiorning about , folks its a chump change get over it!  IRI made some where around 700 Billion during sanctions when the price of oil was around 60 to 110 dollars per barrel. Now no one questions where all that money went to and what was it used for  but every one is obsessed about 400 mill or 1.7 billion! This kind of news is for domestic consumption in U.S for joe Six pack and for one side attaking the other don't fall for it.

But, sanctions did help in the cases of Burma and South Africa. If you're opposed to sanctions, then please propose a better policy. 

Dear Amir- There are vast differences between Burma, SA, and Iran. In case of Burma, we're talking about a small, poor country with very little resources. Iran is an oil rich nation, along with other natural resources, with a huge population, located in a strategic area which can find customers for its oil regardless of sanctions. SA was ruled by a racist minority with a majority restive population. They simply couldn't have held on to power. In Iran's case, the majority of the popultaion actively or tacitly supports the regime, or they don't have the courage to stand up to the regime, and the regime knows it. Lastly, in Burma and SA, you weren't dealing with religious ideology, which adds a whole new dimension to the situation.   

Amir1973, I think most of us have either totally aligned ourselves with western liberals or western conservatives and have adopted one or the other viewpoint which are based on the interests of those foreign nations. This is entirely natural since we actually live here and have had to make various alliances with these two sides to be able to contribute to the conversation in any meaningful way.

Both sides have a distorted view of Iran and the sanctions.

The western liberals think that removing the sanctions will turn the IRI itself into a more friendly and compliant partner in the middle east. This is based on ignorance and misconceptions regarding modern Iranian history. The IRI will never become friends with the U.S. since anti-Americanism is one of the foundations of the state.

On the other hand many of our 'opposition' are actually just western conservatives who take all of their talking points directly from our American neocons and want to sanction Iranians simply as 'revenge' for 'allowing' the mullahs to remain in power so long. This group, though it doesn't represent all of the opposition, is by far the best funded.

As far as doing business with the IRI, it depends on what is more important to us. Do we want to maintain the sanctions which pretty much just amount to a %15 tax on Iran's imports while the regime still makes its billions through oil sales or to infiltrate the IRI the right way, the way we have done it every other time when we instigated a revolution. Like making business contacts, buying their politicians, collecting intelligence under the guise of business and diplomatic relations, having them except loans from our banks in order to ultimately control their monetary policy, etc.?

Dear AO, I think I will have to blame Shah for this one. Actually its both Pahlavis fault. If they had simply allowed Iran to stay an Afghani style wasteland that it was when they first inherited it from the Qajars, none of this would even matter. We could all be living happily and ignorant in Iran to this day herding goats and not knowing anything about the outside world apart from what the local village mullah taught us.

As far as IQ, for some strange reason we are among the best educated and wealthiest minority groups in the western world. What I don't understand is why do so well in the west but fail completely to recreate that kind progress in Iran. 

I thought 'rugged individualism' and personal wealth accumulation were supposed to be among the most desired traits for success in capitalist systems. Why are those traits considered 'good business' in the west but produce the opposite outcome back in Iran?

And in terms of doing business, I have yet to see an Iranian, inside or outside of Iran--even those whose family members have been directly affected by IR violence--not take advantage of an investment or business opportunity inside Iran. That's the sad truth. How many of your family members in the U.S. have bought real estate inside Iran since the IR has come to power? Has IR's human rights records stopped them from doing so? It hasn't stopped my family members.

Sanctions Work!

Sanctions brought the akhoonds on their knees . Sadly Obama the gutless missed the oppurtunity to help Iranians overthrow this terrorist regime. Instead he is pumping billions into terrorist regime's bank account!

Sanctions brought South africa's  Apartheid regime to an end. Of course with Miltary campaign by Nelson Mandela's ANC, which was receiving support from west.

So Sanctions Work! We know it and so does terrorist Mullahs lobby group in US,   NIAC, led by that well exposed political prostitute trita parsi   and his cyber army of  click whores who oppose it 24/7!!

Dear AO, I largely agree with your observations: oil-rich regimes are extremely difficult to overthrow. That being said, the IRI's oil output had dramatically fallen due to sanctions during the first Obama administration, when prices were higher than they are now. Now that sanctions are starting to be lifted, its oil output has significantly risen again. If the IRI had to deal with a very low output, plus low prices, surely that would take a toll on the finances of the regime? If sanctions "only hurt the people and not the regime" (as we often hear), then why was the removal of sanctions ASAP one of the regime's main demands during talks with the so-called P5+1? If memory serves me correctly, even Rouh-ann-i himself has come out and admitted how much sanctions were hurting the regime's ability "to pay its bills" (or something along those lines). All that "sanctions can barely touch us" is typical bluster by Ahmadinejad and his style of Regime Groupies. Let's be honest: Obama threw the regime a much-needed lifeline by removing sanctions during his second term so that he could strike a deal with the IRI and get his "legacy".  

The U.S. does business with any regime it wants to regardless of that nation's human rights record. Look at Saudis for instance, they pretty much attacked one of our major cities and we fell in love with them even more and attacked an entirely different country, Iraq, that had nothing to do with it.

Turning the issue into a simple 'so you advocate doing business with the mullahs' is simply throwing in a red herring. My goal is the final removal of the mullahs' regime. Sanctions will keep the mullahs in power indefinitely. The most we can expect is some concessions on the nuclear or military issue from the IRI in response to sanctions.

But this is what the countries in the region are paying big money to U.S. politicians, think tanks, and media outlets for, to keep the sanctions on Iran as long as possible and hopefully weaken it enough for a successful strike on some of the nuclear facilities. This will solidify the IRI's hold on Iran even further.

In other words, the IRI and its lobbies want sanctions removed ASAP because removing sanctions will undermine the regime, whereas strengthening sanctions would solidify their hold on Iran even further and keep them in power indefinitely. 

It is unfortunate that you keep saying 'IRI and its lobbies'. 

Look, we could either have a somewhat intelligent discussion or throw out attacks in the form of the same buzzwords we all know.

Have numerous IRI officials (e.g. Khamenei, Rouhani, and Javad Zarif) on multiple occasions stated that sanctions should be removed ASAP (and, in fact, should never have been imposed in the first place)?

Is the above question a "buzzword"?

Actually the hard line mullahs and Sepah were always against the deal just like our own conservatives in the west were and still are. Khamenei gave tacit approval for the talks with major restrictions on what concessions could be offered. Our Republicans and Iran's mullahs share alot more in ideology than they are willing to admit.

Your question was not a buzzword. Using the term 'IRI and its lobbies' as a knee jerk response to anyone who questions the neocon's narrative on sanctions makes it seem like the person has been indoctrinated to automatically respond using a set of prefabricated terms. I am calling these 'buzzwords'. Like 'IRI and its lobbies' for example.

I used to use the same terms in my own discussions with IRI apologists. So I know them all.

The 'reformers' want the sanctions removed for their own reasons as well.

You can call it a "knee jerk response". Call it whatever suits your fancy. Many Iranians consider the likes of NIAC to be IRI lobbies. If you disagree with that, that's your right. NIAC vocally opposed sanctions.

But, NIAC are a bunch of insignificant nobodies? Fine.

What about Khamenei? Is he an insignificant nobody, too? He stated that sanctions must be lifted:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/10/world/middleeast/iran-khamenei-rouhani-nuclear-agreement.html?_r=0

There are many,many more statements from Rouhani and Javad Zarif (hardliners, softliners, middle-liners, reformists -- attach whatever label you like to them) stating that sanctions must be lifted ASAP. I find it rather a stretch to believe that Khamenei, Rouhani, Zarif, and such are advocating a policy (i.e. lifting of sanctions) that will undermine the regime. Every regime that has sanctions imposed works to have them lifted, weakened, phased out, eased, etc, etc

I could care less about NIAC. If I was going to change my position simply because I noticed that I shared certain views that could be used to associate me with the 'Iran lobby', I would be a coward. Basing my opinions on what I believe Iranians think is popular, thats what politicians do.

I think I must not be making my point clearly enough. The Revolutionary Guards themselves have come to control large sectors of the economy and they have established themselves as the 'go to' sanctions busters. They can smuggle, ship, and deliver tens of billions of dollars worth of goods under the strictest sanctions regimes. 

Just read any issue of Kayhan and you will come across articles by Sepah affiliated columnists calling to sever all ties with the west ASAP and to abandone the JCPOA.

Because of the sanctions, Iranians must now rely on the only organization that is able to effectively bypass much of the sanctions through smuggling and other black market activities, the Revolutionary Guards.

And if and when more and more sanctions are lifted, various regime elements (including the IRGC and others) won't continue to dominate the economy? Oh, really?!

Sanctions relief has already been and will be continue to be a boon and a shot in the arm for the regime. Which is exactly why the Supreme Leader gave his blessing to the talks, why he stated that sanctions must be lifted, and why his underlings and interlocutors with the world (Rouhani and Javad Zarif) made lifting of sanctions ASAP one of their key demands. Because they know how much lifting of sanctions will further reinforce and consolidate the regime's grip.

The reason that the IRGC wants sanctions to continue is partly because they don't have to worry about international competition. As long as Sepah holds the monopoly on various sectors of the economy they can be sure they will remain profitable.

They know that they cannot compete on the market with better established foreign companies and they don't have to worry about intellectual property rights under the current system that gives them unchallenged free reign.

And now, the IRGC will have to "worry" about "international competition" (LOL)?! Is that how the economy runs in the Mollah Regime?

Rafsanjani and his gang have always been strong opponents of sanctions and wanted them lifted ASAP. I guess Rafsanjani and his family (and all his little "refomist" proteges) now will have to worry about "international competition", too.

Btw, the I guess the Pasdaran "didn't get the memo" about how lifting sanctions hurts them (and vice versa):

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-sanctions-guards-insight-idUSKCN0UX2M3

http://www.janes.com/article/58859/sanctions-relief-increases-risk-of-irgc-front-companies-concealing-illegal-shipments-in-legitimate-iranian-maritime-cargo

http://www.steptoeinternationalcomplianceblog.com/2015/10/the-irgc-and-the-challenges-of-entering-the-iranian-market-part-1/

https://www.brookings.edu/testimonies/major-beneficiaries-of-the-iran-deal-the-irgc-and-hezbollah/

Doc,

Aren't the theories behind opposing airtight sanction(s) as a tool to peacefully eject tyranny, i.e., South Africa and Burma, a case of if the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts?

Fred,

As most people realize, in the real world, there are no perfect policies and no perfect analogies -- that goes for sanctions vis-a-vis the IRI. My question for those opposed to sanctions is: what is a better policy?

My own support for sanctions derives from my view that sanctions are the most forceful policy short of war. Based on the 37-year experience of the nature and patterns of behavior of the regime, I don't think a "softly-softly" approach will work, including the view that if you do business with the IRI, this will lead to an independent middle class, that will then undermine the regime, etc, etc. When it comes to regimes of the IRI's ilk, that strikes me as pure wishful thinking on the part of the well-meaning (and pure manure on the part of self-interested individuals and entities).   

Doc,

Precisely, short of war, there is no better policy than sanctions, that is, if one wishes for emancipation and freedom. 

The cases of South Africa and Burma were a night and day difference from a regime that believes it has GOD on its side. This is a theocracy, an extremist ideology that is more in line with North korea in terms of fanaticism and anti-Americanism that drives it. Do you think 'sanctions' are going to get them to give up anti-Americanism, a foundation of their state? lol

Do you think sanctions are going to change the behavior of this regime? That is what you came up with after 37 years of experience in reading western media reports on the regime?

At the end of the day, it depends on what our goals are. Do we want Iran to one day be free of the IRI or do we wish to keep the economic, political advantages of Iran's neighbors as our most important policy as Iranians in the diaspora? Do we simply wish to punish Iranians anyway for failing to face the regime's thugs to bring it down?

As hard as you have tried here to show that I somehow have 'self interests' in seeing the sanctions lifted, its actually just a figment of your imagination. I certainly don't need to deal with Iran for money, lol, and neither does anyone I'm associated with. 

This is to get rid of these mullahs once and for all, not to make the neocons happy.

I like what you tried to imply there though. Sort of clever way to try to discredit someone's argument.

ArvandRud. I can't say that I enjoy your "Straw Man" arguments as much you seem to enjoy them yourself. The point of sanctions is to deprive the regime to a very considerable extent of the hundreds of billions of dollars that it stands to make from its sales of oil, natural gas, etc. But if you think that lifting sanctions and doing business with the mollahs, IRGC and affiliates (who have and will continue to dominate the economy) will somehow lead someday to an independent middle class, etc and undermine the regime right under their noses, so to speak, then God bless you! I guess the regime didn't realize that, because for some reason they decided to take Obama's deal in exchange for lifting of sanctions, when all they had to do was reject the deal and keep sanctions  in place -- you know, those sanctions that only hurt the people and didn't touch the regime and in fact, solidify the regime for the next 50 years....and so on and so forth.

Good luck and, as the saying goes, I wish you success in all your future endeavors! You'll please forgive me if I excuse myself from making any further replies to you on this blog.

Best,

 Amir

GR, I don't think any sanctions proponent would argue that sanctions are the ONLY policy prescription that should be pursued and implemented. Rather, their advocates generally would argue that they are a necessary (but by themselves) not a sufficent component of policy. 

The link above does not work!

Amir,

I understand that position well. And in Iran's case, the sanctions HAVE worked. Look at the economy. 

The only difference between Iran and NK is the sham elections of all sorts. 

BTW, AO's relatives must be wealthy. Haha. 

Assumig sanctions worked and it wrecked Iranian economy. What is it achieved by destroying Iranian economy?  is it the goal to make people starve? is it the goal to make population poor? Do people who have to work three shifts and 80 hours a week just to feed their family  more inclined to do uprising and establish democracy?

I don't see it and here is the worst part, say the regime collapses tomorrow because of sanctions or under its own weight, who or what organization can come to power and turn things around immedatley? I think the situation is bit more complex now and requires deeper thinking and solution than just advoacting sanctions. 

@MRX: fair enough....What's your opinion? A military coup by the Sepah, which is fanatically devoted to Khomeini's filthy Shia ideology and exporting Emam's Ann-Ghollab to Iraq, Lebanon, Bahrain, etc? I'm assuming it's not that. Then what? A coup by the "artesh"? Fat chance: it's under the thumb of the regime and stacked with their own people and they keep a very close eye on it to prevent anything like that (e.g. Nojeh, etc). In any event, Artesh is a lot weaker than the Sepah.

The whole idea of killing all the generals and creating the Sepah after the islamist takeover was to eliminate the chance of a coup by the military. These fockers are smart, so don't underestimate the cunningness of those who wear the abba/truban or any other religious outfit.

As it is said about Iranians: Want a revolution? Make sure people are well-fed, economy is proseprous and unemplyment is low - You'll get your revolution. Since none of the above is the case now, I don't see any light at the end of the esslamic tunnel anytime soon.

With the possible exception of the '79 revolution, no major uprising in history (as far as I'm aware) occurred at a time of prosperity. Sorry, but it just didn't. Not the French nor the Russian revolutions. As long as oil-rich regimes have lots of revenue, they are pretty secure. That is a decent "rule of thumb" and generally holds true.

Even with the '79 revolution, there were problems with inflation, housing shortages in Tehran, the economy "overheating" because of the dramatic rise in the price of oil several years earlier, etc, etc. Again, I'm not saying that living standards didn't rise significantly under the Shah. Of course, they did. I'm just saying that there were some economic problems developing in the mid-to late 1970s to act as a "spark" and feed the Ann-Ghollab (and, of course, Khomeini's demagoguery, the lies of his followers and the Tudehis, the stupidity, superstition, and backwardness of much of the population etc, etc).

Even just look at 2009. What did the regime do? As soon as protests started, they doubled and quadrupled salaries because they had hundreds of billions of dollars in oil revenues from selling oil at over $100 per barrel for years. A regime flush with oil money is much more secure and stable. 

MRX, the sanctions achieved exactly what they were meant to achieve, keep Iran isolated enough not to pose an economic or political threat to the nations in the region. Iran already poses no real military threat to Israel or Saudi since our U.S. miitary presence in the middle east is basically a tool for those nations' regional interests.

As for revolution, the west doesn't care really. They would actually prefer some type of Islamist regime anyway ruling Iran.

The last thing they need is some type of Iranian secular nationalist type government with the officials all in suits and ties and western educations playing 'the game' too well, buying our politicians here in the U.S., helping to get Republican candidates of their choice elected president, colluding with the western oil companies during ski vacations in Switzerland to raise oil prices whenever they wished, basically single handedly running OPEC (again) etc.. you know, all of the things that necessitated the removal of the last government.

Ami1973, the way I see the options are not that great whichever way you go. Also beggers can't really be choosers. If there was a successfull coup in early 1980's the country could have continued the path that it was deviated from in 1979 but now its a bit late. so on that note:

A) either this fiasco called islamic republic will slowly change due to generational shift (is that a word?)  Evantual change by the new generations that come after. It will be an SLow process and most of us will not be around for that.  At that point  it may still be called islamic republic but the content will be significantly different.

B) An internal coup by a younger member of Sepah pushing the old Guard out, establishing new regime. The new regime  won't be swedish style deomcracy but it will be an improvement over this one.

A war, or revolution or big instability will unleash all sort of problems from riots, ethnic tensions, civil strife and civil war and whatever else that comes with it and I much doubt any Sane Iranian would want to take this route.

Dear MRX, I think you raise valid points, even if I don't agree with it 100%.

Regards,

 Amir

Guys!

Time for a break!

Time for some poetry in Farsi!

I just wrote this poem for "soosan khaanoom" joonam (Suri) who is so obsessed with me , that he calls me all kind of names in all kind of blogs. But she has been missing from her 24/7 duty on Fred's blogs for the past two days, along with  "minimalis" joon!

سوسن خانم جونی جون جونم!

ولی‌ حالا چرا یه دفعه غیبت زده؟ مینیمالیست جونم کجاس؟

به قول شاعر:

با هم میرید ، با هم میآید!

وقتی‌ نیستید "اروند رودتون" میاد!

یه ذره مشکوکین شما‌ها به خدا!!

In the next presidential administration, criminal mullahs' lobby in Washington D.C,  specifically that monkeyTrita Parsi,  should be called for trail in the court of justice for faciltating terrorist acitivities in the M.E via American's money.  N.I.A.C money laundry or rather funds they're receiving from Bonyad Alavi in N.Y.C.  All these billion Obama's ransom and N.I.A.C  paid share from that money should have been disclosed to the Americans. 

 History had been proven that terrorists only survive if they get paid, otherwise, they die out soon. Money plays substantial role.