The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPat Buchanan Archive
Fire Bell in the Night for the Ayatollah
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

As tens of thousands marched in the streets of Tehran on Wednesday in support of the regime, the head of the Revolutionary Guard Corps assured Iranians the “sedition” had been defeated.

Maj. Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari is whistling past the graveyard.

The protests that broke out a week ago and spread and became riots are a fire bell in the night for the Islamic Republic.

The protesters denounced President Hassan Rouhani, re-elected last year with 57 percent of the vote, for failing to curb inflation or deliver the benefits he promised when Iran signed the nuclear deal.

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, commander in chief and head of state, in power three decades, was also denounced, as were Iran’s interventions in wars in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Gaza and Yemen.

In 2009, the uprising of millions in Tehran was driven by middle-class rage over an election stolen by the populist President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. This past week’s protests began in the working class, in what might be called Iran’s “fly-over country.”

The protesters were Red State and Tea Party types, demanding their own version of “Come Home, Iran” and “Iran First!”

The charge against Rouhani is that he has failed to deliver the good times promised. Against the ayatollah and the mullahs, the charge is that what they have delivered — power and wealth to the clerics, social repression, foreign wars — are not what the Iranian people want.

The greater long-term threat of the protests is to the Islamic regime.

For if the protests are about people being denied the freedom and material goods the young enjoy in the West, the protesters are demanding what theocracies do not deliver. How could the ayatollah and the mullahs, who restrict freedom by divine law, accept democratic freedoms without imperiling their own theological dictatorship?

How could the Republican Guard surrender its slice of the Iranian economy and end its foreign interventions without imperiling its reason for being — to protect and promote the Iranian Islamic revolution?

Half of Iran’s population is 31 or younger. This new generation was not even born until a decade after the Revolution that overthrew the Shah.

How does a clerical regime speak to a people, 40 million of whom have smartphones connecting them to an outside world where they can see the freedom and prosperity they seek, but their government cannot or will not deliver?
The protesters are also telling Rouhani’s “reformers,” in power now for five years, that they, too, have failed.

Rouhani’s dilemma? To grow Iran’s economy and improve the quality of life, he needs more foreign investment and more consumer goods. Yet any surge in material prosperity Rouhani delivers is certain to undermine the religious faith undergirding the theocratic regime.

And as any transfer of power to the elected regime has to come at the expense of the clerics and the Guard, Rouhani is not likely to get that power.

Thus, he and his government are likely to continue to fail.

Bottom line: The Islamic Republic of Iran was not established to create a materially prosperous and socially free society, because, in the ayatollah’s theology, such societies, like the USA, are of the devil and corruptive of the people.

Social freedom is irreconcilable with Iranian theocracy.

And Iranian hard-liners, clerical and military, are not going to permit protests demanding Western freedom and material goods, to cause them to commit what they believe would be ideological suicide.

Yet the U.S. and President Trump also face a dilemma.

If as Trump says, we wish the Iranian people well, how do we justify scraping the nuclear deal in which Iranians have placed so much hope, and reimposing the sanctions that will restore the hardships of yesterday?

How does America proclaim herself a friend of the Iranian people, if we are trying to persuade Europeans to abrogate the nuclear accord and reimpose the sanctions that impoverish the Iranian people?

ORDER IT NOW

Will we urge the Iranians to rise up and overthrow their regime, as we did the Hungarians in 1956, which resulted in their massacre by Soviet tanks sent into Budapest? Ike’s response: He sent Vice President Nixon to greet the surviving Hungarian patriots fleeing across the Andau Bridge into Austria.

After Desert Storm in 1991, George H.W. Bush urged Iraqis to rise up against Saddam Hussein. When the Shiites did rise up, they, too, were massacred, as our Army from Desert Storm stood by in Kuwait.

If there is an Iranian uprising and it results in a Tiananmen Square slaughter in Tehran, do we really want the U.S., which would not likely intervene to save the patriots, held morally accountable?

The Iranian protests suggest that the Islamic Revolution, after 40 years, is failing the rising generation. It is hard to see how this is not ominous news for the Iranian regime.

As it was not on the side of the Soviets, time is not on the side of the ayatollahs either.

We need not go to war with them. Time will take care of them, too.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”

Copyright 2018 Creators.com.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: American Military, Iran 
Hide 91 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. peterAUS says:

    Wow

    Bottom line: The Islamic Republic of Iran was not established to create a materially prosperous and socially free society, because, in the ayatollah’s theology, such societies, like the USA, are of the devil and corruptive of the people.
    Social freedom is irreconcilable with Iranian theocracy.
    And Iranian hard-liners, clerical and military, are not going to permit protests demanding Western freedom and material goods, to cause them to commit what they believe would be ideological suicide.

    The Iranian protests suggest that the Islamic Revolution, after 40 years, is failing the rising generation. It is hard to see how this is not ominous news for the Iranian regime.
    As it was not on the side of the Soviets, time is not on the side of the ayatollahs either.

    Well…Mr. Buchanan is definitely not a hawk.
    He also has better access to the real situation on the ground than most of people posting here.

    I just can’t see any good outcome if his assessment is correct.
    No way that the neocons won’t seize the opportunity in case of anything looking as uprising.
    Any situation even remotely resembling Hungary ‘56, China ’89 and Iraq ‘91 will definitely be seized for an intervention in Iran.

    I just don’t get an impression that the situation is that bad as Mr. Buchanan is describing.
    Confusing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bluedog
    Of course its not for you see Pats an imperiallist and always has been,regime instead of government,lack of democracy,lack of freedoms or lol you have to be just like us (God forbid) western values the buck part of the empire,etc,Pat sure has a lot to say about something he knows so little about but then again its the neo-con way...,
    , @nebulafox
    No. The American people have made explicitly clear that foreign interventions were not wanted in 2013 over Syria. Give Obama his due: in spite of being pressured daily by the Monday Morning Quarterbacks in both the Senate GOP and his own cabinet, realized his mistake in Libya and refused to put troops on the ground. That took some serious backbone. (The only shameful thing is that he could not, in the end, shed his Harvard professor instincts and support Assad.) Public opinion played as much a role in that as the risk of getting into a direct conflict with Russia and Iran over a conflict that they had far more of a direct stake in than we did.

    Let's hope Trump learns the same lesson. Because if Operation IRANIAN FREEDOM happens against the vast majority of the people's will, the Democrats will win in 2020, no matter how loony SJW they go. Iran is three times the size of a Iraq with a basis in national cohesion that no other state in the region except for Israel has, and their military is far, far better trained and prepared than Saddam's ramshackle post DESERT STORM army was. They can't possibly "win" against us conventionally, to be sure, but this would be magnitudes more nasty, costly and expensive than IRAQI FREEDOM was. And the people know it.

    , @Frankie P
    I'm pasting my comment that I posted at the American Conservative (should be American Cuckservative or even American neo-neo-Conservative), a once-readable site that has gone down the tubes. I have taken the precaution at sites like the American Conservative and Mondoweiss of copying my comments and saving them as word documents, as the moderators so often scrub them and don't post them. Thank God for unz.com. Ron, you truly are a wonder, a man with a real sense of freedom.

    PeterAus, this goes as a response to your comment, as you first say that he has better access to facts on the ground (he obviously doesn't), and if his assessment is correct you can't see a good outcome (his assessment is NOT correct), and then you finish with your confusing conclusion that the situation is not as bad as Mr. Buchanan is describing (it's not).

    Yes, Pat Buchanan is delivering his major point: the US has no business getting involved in the Iranian protests, so we should just wait and see what happens. Most realist conservatives would agree with this point. The backstory that he presents, however, is so full of holes and mistruths, surface analyses and omissions, that it seriously impacts his major point. When you support your main thesis with details and facts made of excrement, don't be surprised when people say it smells like an outhouse.

    "Rouhani’s dilemma? To grow Iran’s economy and improve the quality of life, he needs more foreign investment and more consumer goods. Yet any surge in material prosperity that Rouhani delivers is certain to undermine the religious faith undergirding the theocratic regime."

    Pat Buchanan, like the presstitutes in mainstream media, fails to address two big issues when talking about Rouhani's failure to grow Iran's economy. They are 1. US driven international economic blockade and sanctions and 2. US driven international economic blockade and sanctions. Yes, Rouhani mistakenly hoped that the lifting of SOME of the sanctions brought about by JCPOA would immediately lift the economy and bring about a flood of international investment. It did not, and that is not surprising, considering the belligerent attitude that Washington still takes towards Iran and the poodle-like relationship of the European politicians and economies with the US. Anyone who believes that the economic blockade and sanctions have been lifted is NOT paying attention.

    "The protesters were red state and tea party types, demanding their own version of “Come Home, Iran” and “Iran First!”"

    Wishful thinking by Pat and the west, propelled by dishonest journalism from the western media, hell bent on turning economic protests into political protests and then magnifying them into calls for regime change. Fact: A recent poll of Iranians shows great support for the military and other support Iran is giving other countries in the region: (“In general, to what degree do you support or oppose Iran providing help to”: Hezbollah (71% approve), government of Assad (66% approve), Hamas (70% approve) Shiites and Kurds in Iraq fighting ISIL (88% approve), Iran should send military personnel to Syria (63% approve).

    These numbers represent a mandate of the people.

    "How does a clerical regime speak to a people of whom 40 million have smartphones connecting them to an outside world on which they can see the freedom and prosperity they seek but their government cannot or will not deliver?"

    Is that really what they see, Pat? Are you sure that they don't see the things that YOU see when you endlessly criticize the ongoing destruction of western Christian civilization? Societies from Europe to North America that have traded in their morality and spirituality for a cheap materialism that leaves them feeling empty and in need of painkillers (OxyContin), conveniently supplied by those who seek the end of their civilization and culture. Do those young Iranians yearn for our porn culture, our gutting of the traditional family, our embracing transgenderism and homosexuality as beacons of freedom, all conveniently pushed by the agenda of the usual suspects? Do they? Perhaps they agree with their religious authorities on some of these issues?

    In conclusion, when Pat Buchanan writes about the US and criticizes what he and many conservatives see as an ongoing project to hijack and gut the prevailing culture built over the past centuries, he wears one hat. That hat causes people to label him an Anti-semite, loses him lucrative TV talking head positions and places him at the margins of journalism. It has had an effect on his writing, a big effect in my view. When he writes about Iran, he suddenly ADOPTS many of the views of the progressive SJW left, crowing about our freedoms and democracy, our materialism and free culture, and to be honest, it doesn't sound like Pat Buchanan.

    Yes, Pat, let's stay the hell out of Iran. I'm with your there. But I liked you better when you were a truth-teller all the way, regardless of the names you were called.

    Frankie P
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. bluedog says:
    @peterAUS
    Wow

    Bottom line: The Islamic Republic of Iran was not established to create a materially prosperous and socially free society, because, in the ayatollah’s theology, such societies, like the USA, are of the devil and corruptive of the people.
    Social freedom is irreconcilable with Iranian theocracy.
    And Iranian hard-liners, clerical and military, are not going to permit protests demanding Western freedom and material goods, to cause them to commit what they believe would be ideological suicide.

    The Iranian protests suggest that the Islamic Revolution, after 40 years, is failing the rising generation. It is hard to see how this is not ominous news for the Iranian regime.
    As it was not on the side of the Soviets, time is not on the side of the ayatollahs either.
     
    Well…Mr. Buchanan is definitely not a hawk.
    He also has better access to the real situation on the ground than most of people posting here.

    I just can’t see any good outcome if his assessment is correct.
    No way that the neocons won’t seize the opportunity in case of anything looking as uprising.
    Any situation even remotely resembling Hungary ‘56, China ’89 and Iraq ‘91 will definitely be seized for an intervention in Iran.

    I just don’t get an impression that the situation is that bad as Mr. Buchanan is describing.
    Confusing.

    Of course its not for you see Pats an imperiallist and always has been,regime instead of government,lack of democracy,lack of freedoms or lol you have to be just like us (God forbid) western values the buck part of the empire,etc,Pat sure has a lot to say about something he knows so little about but then again its the neo-con way…,

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Didn't Pat conclude by writing that the US should NOT go to war against Iran? How is that imperialist? How is he imperialist in spending decades opposing US interference in numerous countries and conflicts?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Randal says:

    A lot of typically American wishful thinking on Iran here from Buchanan, who is not by any means immune merely because he is not an interventionist from the general American delusion and irrationality on Iran.

    There’s no reason to equate these latest demonstrations in Iran with the popular dissatisfaction in the US that gave rise to the anti-establishment vote for Trump, since almost nothing is similar in the social, economic and political situations of the two countries. It’s a simple failure of imagination on Buchanan’s part that draws a simplistic equation between the foreign and the familiar.

    As for the supposedly direly portentous nature of these apparently relatively small and quickly suppressed riots for the entire Iranian constitutional settlement, that seems to be wholly wishful thinking on Buchanan’s part, based upon the usual American fantasy that no society that does not kowtow to American ideas about liberal democracy can possibly survive for long.

    For the moment, the reasonable assumption seems to be that this brief flash of disorder was less significant for the long term, albeit more intense, than, say, the “Black Lives Matter” and antifa thuggery that is now endemic to US society, despite the best efforts at active interference to promote it by the US and its regional collaborators.

    In 2009, the uprising of millions in Tehran was driven by middle-class rage over an election stolen by the populist President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. ”

    Buchanan ought to know better, here. If we are to try to draw a parallel between Iranian and American politics as Buchanan does here, then a better place to begin is to observe that the socially radical left are universally very bad losers, and profoundly hypocritical and dishonest about the excuses they use to try to get their own way in the face of defeat. The 2009 protests were more aptly viewed as an equivalent of the anti-Trump temper tantrums in the US this year, inflamed by well financed dirty tricks from the US.

    In general, the persistent effectiveness within the US of all the Democrat and Russophobe nonsense about Russian “interference” can probably legitimately be seen as the national equivalent of a guilty conscience at work, given that interfering in other countries’ political affairs has been the very essence of American behaviour.

    The Iranian protests suggest that the Islamic Revolution, after 40 years, is failing the rising generation.

    Funny how every few years Iran, like pretty much every other country in the world, has a bout of political unrest and in Iran’s case it’s always evidence that “the Islamic revolution is failing”. If it wasn’t in 1999 and it wasn’t in 2009, I think the odds are it won’t prove to have been so in 2017/18. I think the better conclusion is that American pundits are full of shit about Iran.

    Iran has plenty of problems, in the economic sphere mostly because, as a result of its refusal to kowtow to the US and to Israel, it has faced determined and continuous economic warfare from the US, aided and abetted by its hugely “influential” regional rivals Israel and Saudi Arabia. Whether it will ultimately overcome those problems and continue to survive long term remains to be seen, but there’s no reason to believe the usual American bullshit about the inevitable triumph of social radicalism meaning Iran can only save itself by making itself like America.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    then a better place to begin is to observe that the socially radical left are universally very bad losers

    So, just how large and influential is this socially radical left in Iran?
    , @Pat Hannagan
    Bravo, well said, Randall.

    I was surprised by Buchanan's take on Iran especially given that without Iran the Christians of Syria would have gone the way of the Christians of Iraq by now, this is, exterminated.

    One would have thought a Catholic could have noted that?

    As for the economic problems, Iran is a nation under siege. May God give them strength to persist in the face of ongoing Judeo-American evil.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. KenH says:

    So this seemingly astroturf protest just materialized out of thin air right on the heels of Israel and their U.S. vassal state reaching an MOU to marginalize Iran’s nuclear capabilities? No doubt Iran is not Disneyland and I’m sure there’s a level of disaffection among some groups, but I don’t think this is a coincidence.

    If Palestinians protest against Israel they are derided as terrorists. If white Americans protest mass third world immigration or destruction of civil war icons they are castigated as white supremacist scum who should be summarily arrested or killed.

    But when there’s protests against governments that Israel or their Western vassals don’t like then the government and media fall head over heels in love with the protesters.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  5. Renoman says:

    If Donny Daddy would learn to shut his big mouth he might get to be a great President.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  6. Giuseppe says:

    Will we urge the Iranians to rise up and overthrow their regime, as we did the Hungarians in 1956…

    It would appear that the CIA is working on that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  7. Perhaps the Iranian protestors would like to see their county turned into Iraq or Libya or Syria. They might get their wish.

    Read More
    • Replies: @nickels
    Well played.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. TheOldOne says:

    Ol Pat has to keep in the good graces of the ((eskimos)); columns like this are how he does it–got to keep that big money rolling in.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  9. iffen says:
    @Randal
    A lot of typically American wishful thinking on Iran here from Buchanan, who is not by any means immune merely because he is not an interventionist from the general American delusion and irrationality on Iran.

    There's no reason to equate these latest demonstrations in Iran with the popular dissatisfaction in the US that gave rise to the anti-establishment vote for Trump, since almost nothing is similar in the social, economic and political situations of the two countries. It's a simple failure of imagination on Buchanan's part that draws a simplistic equation between the foreign and the familiar.

    As for the supposedly direly portentous nature of these apparently relatively small and quickly suppressed riots for the entire Iranian constitutional settlement, that seems to be wholly wishful thinking on Buchanan's part, based upon the usual American fantasy that no society that does not kowtow to American ideas about liberal democracy can possibly survive for long.

    For the moment, the reasonable assumption seems to be that this brief flash of disorder was less significant for the long term, albeit more intense, than, say, the "Black Lives Matter" and antifa thuggery that is now endemic to US society, despite the best efforts at active interference to promote it by the US and its regional collaborators.


    In 2009, the uprising of millions in Tehran was driven by middle-class rage over an election stolen by the populist President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. ”
     
    Buchanan ought to know better, here. If we are to try to draw a parallel between Iranian and American politics as Buchanan does here, then a better place to begin is to observe that the socially radical left are universally very bad losers, and profoundly hypocritical and dishonest about the excuses they use to try to get their own way in the face of defeat. The 2009 protests were more aptly viewed as an equivalent of the anti-Trump temper tantrums in the US this year, inflamed by well financed dirty tricks from the US.

    In general, the persistent effectiveness within the US of all the Democrat and Russophobe nonsense about Russian "interference" can probably legitimately be seen as the national equivalent of a guilty conscience at work, given that interfering in other countries' political affairs has been the very essence of American behaviour.


    The Iranian protests suggest that the Islamic Revolution, after 40 years, is failing the rising generation.
     
    Funny how every few years Iran, like pretty much every other country in the world, has a bout of political unrest and in Iran's case it's always evidence that "the Islamic revolution is failing". If it wasn't in 1999 and it wasn't in 2009, I think the odds are it won't prove to have been so in 2017/18. I think the better conclusion is that American pundits are full of shit about Iran.

    Iran has plenty of problems, in the economic sphere mostly because, as a result of its refusal to kowtow to the US and to Israel, it has faced determined and continuous economic warfare from the US, aided and abetted by its hugely "influential" regional rivals Israel and Saudi Arabia. Whether it will ultimately overcome those problems and continue to survive long term remains to be seen, but there's no reason to believe the usual American bullshit about the inevitable triumph of social radicalism meaning Iran can only save itself by making itself like America.

    then a better place to begin is to observe that the socially radical left are universally very bad losers

    So, just how large and influential is this socially radical left in Iran?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    You do understand that being socially radical is relative to the existing status quo, right? I mean, if you don't then that might explain why you felt the need to ask the question in the first place, and save us both time.
    , @Randal
    No need to waste time answering it when it was easier to point out how and why it was a tendentious waste of time based upon ignorance or dishonesty.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. Randal says:
    @iffen
    then a better place to begin is to observe that the socially radical left are universally very bad losers

    So, just how large and influential is this socially radical left in Iran?

    You do understand that being socially radical is relative to the existing status quo, right? I mean, if you don’t then that might explain why you felt the need to ask the question in the first place, and save us both time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    and save us both time

    True, I could have saved us the time because I knew that you would not answer the question.
    , @YetAnotherAnon
    Yes, the 'socially radical left' adjusts its demands to the prevailing climate "where'e'er it be by land or sea". That Overton Window moves an inch at a time, but nearly always in the same direction.

    In the UK of 1967, the speeches which most of the supporters of homosexual decriminalisation made in and out of Parliament (basically, 'they're sad disordered people, no one likes them or their acts, but is that sufficient reason to lock them up?') , would see them arrested for 'hate speech' today.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. iffen says:
    @Randal
    You do understand that being socially radical is relative to the existing status quo, right? I mean, if you don't then that might explain why you felt the need to ask the question in the first place, and save us both time.

    and save us both time

    True, I could have saved us the time because I knew that you would not answer the question.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. nickels says:

    Cause $liberalism$ is freedom!!
    Just ask the 1%.

    If only these people knew….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  13. nickels says:
    @WorkingClass
    Perhaps the Iranian protestors would like to see their county turned into Iraq or Libya or Syria. They might get their wish.

    Well played.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. peterAUS says:

    I guess the heart of the matter is: how big, exactly, that discontent is?

    I’ve trawled Internet a bit, but, not easy to get a handle on that, for several reasons.

    My point was/is that Buchanan is probably in a better position to get the real info than any of us posting here.

    If…if that discontent is significant, well, it’s only logical to realize that neocons will exploit it.

    Of course that the state of Iran has efficient mechanisms to deal with it.
    The point is, the neocons also have efficient mechanisms there too.

    Didn’t “Syria thing” start like this (among others)?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  15. “How does a clerical regime speak to a people, 40 million of whom have smartphones connecting them to an outside world where they can see the freedom and prosperity they seek, but their government cannot or will not deliver?”

    I never thought to give props to the value of FaceBag and other social media as a weapon of mass destruction. I thought they were simply evil for leading the youth of the West to despair and suicide because they knew their own lives really weren’t as interesting as those of their “friends.” Social media is also leading to the further destruction of the Western way of life by attracting the third world to share in its so-called “benefits.”

    Wow, suddenly I realize we need a Truth in Social Media rating and censorship system.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  16. Randal says:
    @iffen
    then a better place to begin is to observe that the socially radical left are universally very bad losers

    So, just how large and influential is this socially radical left in Iran?

    No need to waste time answering it when it was easier to point out how and why it was a tendentious waste of time based upon ignorance or dishonesty.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    based upon ignorance or dishonesty.

    Yours
    , @iffen
    Far be it from me to defend PB, whose vainglory delivered us into the hands of George dubya Bush. I defend his article against extraneous comments.

    There’s no reason to equate these latest demonstrations in Iran with the popular dissatisfaction in the US that gave rise to the anti-establishment vote for Trump

    The quality of the reports from Iran is questionable. I have seen reports that the protests accelerated on economic bread and butter issues and that there was an element that demanded less in the way of foreign adventurism vis-à-vis concentration on core Iranian issues.

    I voted for Trump and it was because I thought he was better on economic issues and foreign adventures than Clinton. I am reasonable sure that I was not the only one with that motivation.

    that seems to be wholly wishful thinking on Buchanan’s part, based upon the usual American fantasy that no society that does not kowtow to American ideas about liberal democracy can possibly survive for long

    He didn’t say anything like this. He said:

    For if the protests are about people being denied the freedom and material goods the young enjoy in the West

    Notice the if.

    In 2009, the uprising of millions in Tehran was driven by middle-class rage over an election stolen by the populist President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. ”
    Buchanan ought to know better, here.

    As far as the information that is available informs us, the composition of the protesters does seem to be different.

    the socially radical left are universally very bad losers

    No doubt true, everybody can’t be gracious losers like …

    The 2009 protests were more aptly viewed as an equivalent of the anti-Trump temper tantrums in the US this year, inflamed by well financed dirty tricks from the US.

    This is where you make up shit and force an analogy between Iran and the US. Exactly what you accuse PB of doing. And yes, I know about tu quoque.

    given that interfering in other countries’ political affairs has been the very essence of American behaviour.

    I’ll give you this.

    PB The Iranian protests suggest that the Islamic Revolution, after 40 years, is failing the rising generation.

    there’s no reason to believe the usual American bullshit about the inevitable triumph of social radicalism meaning Iran can only save itself by making itself like America.

    That’s not what he said. He said that a theocracy can’t deliver the same package as liberal democracy, and he is correct. Whether you want that package or not is up to you.

    You have a funnel brain with two sides. On one side is “slam America” and on the other is “blame leftists,” and you pour many words and paragraphs down that funnel and you do it regardless of the subject of the article.

    I must add that I have had regretful wasted time, delicious and savory wasted time, wasted wasted time, and perhaps tedious wasted time, but tendentious wasted time is new to me.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. Randal says:

    Well done to the Russians, by the way, for openly and firmly stating what everyone honest knows to be the truth about US behaviour, but most are either too keen to curry favour with the world empire or too scared to upset its regime clique and “influencing” lobbies to openly say so with the appropriate force, or share its ill-will towards Iran.

    Russia berates US for UN meeting on Iran

    Russia has fiercely criticised the US for convening the UN Security Council over protests in Iran.

    Russia’s envoy Vassily Nebenzia said Iran should be left to “deal with its own problems” and that involving the council in an “internal affair” damaged the top body.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  18. iffen says:
    @Randal
    No need to waste time answering it when it was easier to point out how and why it was a tendentious waste of time based upon ignorance or dishonesty.

    based upon ignorance or dishonesty.

    Yours

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. yeah says:

    I wouldn’t bet a dime on Pat’s forecasts regarding Iran. I would, however, be willing to bet a hundred dollars that Pat does not like “uppity” Iran. Well, Mr. Buchanan, if Iranians could be so much more prosperous and happier under somebody like the Shah of Iran (fully certified and approved by the US State and its alphabet agencies, as also by its media wizards and columnists) then why on earth did they, at great risk and cost, rise up against him? Protests against inflation, lack of jobs, and economic hardship are serious but rarely critical. Unfortunately, they are also fairly common occurrences the world over. It is worth noting that in Iran the protests are not against Government corruption or state tyranny. Those might have been worth taking note of.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  20. @bluedog
    Of course its not for you see Pats an imperiallist and always has been,regime instead of government,lack of democracy,lack of freedoms or lol you have to be just like us (God forbid) western values the buck part of the empire,etc,Pat sure has a lot to say about something he knows so little about but then again its the neo-con way...,

    Didn’t Pat conclude by writing that the US should NOT go to war against Iran? How is that imperialist? How is he imperialist in spending decades opposing US interference in numerous countries and conflicts?

    Read More
    • Replies: @bluedog
    Big difference between "going to war" and instigating internal strife within a country to create its own war as we did back in oh 51/52 , as we did with a number of countries in S.A. with the creation of the death squads,Serbia and a host of others, and I don't remember him ever condeming those,with Pat its always what serves the American interest..
    , @NoseytheDuke
    Pat writes that the US should not go to war against Iran not because he's against the war itself but because he expects Iran to fall anyway without the need for a war. A wiser and more honourable man would determine that the Iranians themselves should be the ones to decide how they are governed and by whom. Such a man might even use his standing and influence to argue that the money and manpower being squandered by meddling in the ME could be put to better use in rebuilding America.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. iffen says:
    @Randal
    No need to waste time answering it when it was easier to point out how and why it was a tendentious waste of time based upon ignorance or dishonesty.

    Far be it from me to defend PB, whose vainglory delivered us into the hands of George dubya Bush. I defend his article against extraneous comments.

    There’s no reason to equate these latest demonstrations in Iran with the popular dissatisfaction in the US that gave rise to the anti-establishment vote for Trump

    The quality of the reports from Iran is questionable. I have seen reports that the protests accelerated on economic bread and butter issues and that there was an element that demanded less in the way of foreign adventurism vis-à-vis concentration on core Iranian issues.

    I voted for Trump and it was because I thought he was better on economic issues and foreign adventures than Clinton. I am reasonable sure that I was not the only one with that motivation.

    that seems to be wholly wishful thinking on Buchanan’s part, based upon the usual American fantasy that no society that does not kowtow to American ideas about liberal democracy can possibly survive for long

    He didn’t say anything like this. He said:

    For if the protests are about people being denied the freedom and material goods the young enjoy in the West

    Notice the if.

    In 2009, the uprising of millions in Tehran was driven by middle-class rage over an election stolen by the populist President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. ”
    Buchanan ought to know better, here.

    As far as the information that is available informs us, the composition of the protesters does seem to be different.

    the socially radical left are universally very bad losers

    No doubt true, everybody can’t be gracious losers like …

    The 2009 protests were more aptly viewed as an equivalent of the anti-Trump temper tantrums in the US this year, inflamed by well financed dirty tricks from the US.

    This is where you make up shit and force an analogy between Iran and the US. Exactly what you accuse PB of doing. And yes, I know about tu quoque.

    given that interfering in other countries’ political affairs has been the very essence of American behaviour.

    I’ll give you this.

    PB The Iranian protests suggest that the Islamic Revolution, after 40 years, is failing the rising generation.

    there’s no reason to believe the usual American bullshit about the inevitable triumph of social radicalism meaning Iran can only save itself by making itself like America.

    That’s not what he said. He said that a theocracy can’t deliver the same package as liberal democracy, and he is correct. Whether you want that package or not is up to you.

    You have a funnel brain with two sides. On one side is “slam America” and on the other is “blame leftists,” and you pour many words and paragraphs down that funnel and you do it regardless of the subject of the article.

    I must add that I have had regretful wasted time, delicious and savory wasted time, wasted wasted time, and perhaps tedious wasted time, but tendentious wasted time is new to me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    I suppose greater effort on your part with this response deserves a less dismissive response. The reason I tend to be dismissive is because I am well aware you are by no means as stupid as your desperate efforts to back neocon concerns make you appear, and I rather doubt, when you make a comment as self-evidently point-missing as your first one on this thread, that it should be taken at face value. In general, it's rarely useful to get involved in lengthy exchanges with lobby obsessives.

    The thrust of your response here seems to be that I've been unfair to Buchanan in accusing him of pushing, in relation to Iran, the typical American line that societies have to be socially liberal like America's in order to survive. You selectively quoted Buchanan to try to support your assertion, but you of course left out key quotes that make my point:

    "The Islamic Republic of Iran was not established to create a materially prosperous and socially free society, because, in the ayatollah’s theology, such societies, like the USA, are of the devil and corruptive of the people."

    and:

    "As it was not on the side of the Soviets, time is not on the side of the ayatollahs either."

    Buchanan implicitly claims that an "unfree society" (by which he evidently means one that is not as socially and economically liberal as American society) will also fail to deliver material benefits to its people, and tries to claim that this is evidenced by the economic problems experienced by Iran over the past few years. This is of course grossly disingenuous, since it is generally recognised in honest circles that the most obvious cause of Iran's economic problems is the economic warfare waged by the US and its various proxies. Until that has been disposed of, no economic underperformance by Iran can possibly be used as evidence against its constitutional setup. This is, of course, mere common sense, and to deny it is indicative of ideological or lobby-driven ulterior motive.


    This is where you make up shit and force an analogy between Iran and the US. Exactly what you accuse PB of doing. And yes, I know about tu quoque.
     
    There was no "making up shit", and I explicitly stated in my comment that I was drawing an analogy as Buchanan had, only in my case it at least had some plausibility (at least for those not trying to pretend, as you did, that social radicalism is not relative to the status quo in each society).


    You have a funnel brain with two sides. On one side is “slam America” and on the other is “blame leftists,” and you pour many words and paragraphs down that funnel and you do it regardless of the subject of the article.
     
    It's regrettable then that you seem to feel a need to read so many of my comments despite that, and to try to interject whenever you think you might have a chance to "trip me up", even if it requires obtuseness like your nonsense about social radicalism on this thread, which ultimately only discredits you, rather than me. I have absolutely no objection to honest questioning of my arguments (that's rather the point of setting them out), but I have gained the impression that yours is not honest and therefore I only respond when and to the extent that I think it is useful to do so.

    The twin themes of problems caused by excess US power and its abuse, and the triumph of the left in the US sphere over the past few decades are certainly ones I regard as being of huge importance, and I make no apology for that. Clearly I'm far from the only one here, either below or above the line, who sees one or other, or both, of those as high priorities. Nor do I have any difficulty making either case when needed. Your problem with those issues no doubt stems from your particular loyalties and primary concerns, which clearly are different from mine.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. Half of Iran’s population is 31 or younger.

    “Half of Iran’s population has been 31 or younger” for the last 15 years.

    Pat, you don’t have children so you might not understand that, dang it, they do grow up.

    Also Pat, why is it you refrain from mentioning how US Congress has been intentionally attempting to subvert, undermine and overthrow Iran’s government for even longer than “half of Iran’s population is 31 or younger” (or even longer than Netanyahu has been claiming that “Iran is 2 years away from a bomb”).

    Your co-religionist, Ed Royce, rep from Orange County CA, declared back in 2007 that sanctions on Iran were intended to make Iran’s economy so bad that the people would riot and overthrow their government.

    Pat, why don’t you call out the US Congress for violating the United Nations declarations against interfering in the domestic affairs of member states? Huh Pat?

    You wrote that WWII was an “unnecessary war;” you do realize, don’t you Pat, that Jews provoked that war, beginning ~March 1933, by means of an economic boycott that was intended to “bring Germany to its knees” and cause the people to rise up and overthrow their government?

    And when that didn’t work, the US and Britain firebombed the hell out of Germany; the firebombing campaigns were preceded by leafletting urging German civilians to rise up and overthrow their government. https://www.c-span.org/video/?196223-1/the-fire-bombing-germany-1940-1945
    Intentionally firebombing civilians is a war crime.

    Is that the trajectory for Iran, Pat?

    Do you think you will be around to write the book about how the firebombing of Iran was part of an “unnecessary war,” or are you willing to stick your neck out and say

    STOP THIS GOD DAMN ECONOMIC WAR AGAINST IRAN! it is the equivalent of a war crime and it is a precursor to hot war.

    Read More
    • Agree: L.K
    • Replies: @Art
    Pat, why don’t you call out the US Congress for violating the United Nations declarations against interfering in the domestic affairs of member states? Huh Pat?

    S2C,

    Pat still has a bit of geopolitical Nixonian chess player in him. He still wants to play the national government statecraft games, that ignore the people of these countries.

    Starting in 1953, America’s geopolitical statecraft on Iran has been un-godly.

    There is a real valid fight in Iran, it is between Persian culture and Islam – the US government must stay away – it would only make it worse and bloodier.

    Think Peace – Art

    p.s. The CIA should be limited to only spying – NO covert actions – PERIOD.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. KA says:

    Pat you are a sad sack of “wannabe” – psychologically rescued by the default position that grapes are sour . You wanted to be Bush 2 and Obama and Trump . You wanted to wage each and every war they waged. You hide your anguish bitterness by attacking the neocon . You are one of them . They for some reason didn’t like you . You are Bannon /Flynn who calls into question Iraq war Libya war but marches with new drums to wage war against Iran. What a sack! What a sadness!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  24. H. S. says:

    EMPOWER WOMEN In Iran, France, Québec, US of A, UK, Europe, China, and Russia.

    As the song says:

    ”C’est pas d’un cerveau feminine
    Qu’est sortie la bombe atomique
    Et pas une femme n’a sur les mains
    Le sang des Indiens d’Amérique

    Et quand viendra l’heure dernière
    L’enfer s’ra peuplé de crétins
    Jouant au foot ou a la guerre
    A celui qui pisse le plus loin
    …..”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
    "Le sang des Indiens d’Amérique"

    Well....that's easy for you to say.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. anon • Disclaimer says:

    “Social freedom is irreconcilable with Iranian theocracy”.

    Freedom is irreconcilable with Islam.

    Read More
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    I wouldn't necessarily go that far, but it does seem to take an Ataturk-esque leader willing to castrate many aspects of the religion to make it happen. This shouldn't be unexpected, really: Islam never had the Enlightenment of the 1700s. Among other radical changes, the idea of separation of church and state came into the fore during those years.

    Note that this isn't limited to the Islamic World: in Russia, traditionally, the idea of "symphonia" underlies the unity of the Orthodox Church and the state, in venerable Byzantine fashion. Feudalism only began to totter apart in Russia in the latter 1800s, unlike in the West, and it would only be with the Bolsheviks that the power of the Orthodox Church was smashed. (And unlike the post-Napoleonic peace found between religion and state in Europe proper, the suppression would be violent, ugly, and accomplished by decades of terror that made the Reign of Terror look like a ripple.)

    Symphonia has made a significant comeback lately: it plays a very integral part in Putin's regime. Which is less surprising than it may sound, as Josef Stalin, that failed Orthodox seminarian, took a rather interesting policy turn on the churches well into his reign when he realized its importance for morale among ordinary Russians in WWII... swiss-cheesing it with secret police agents.

    , @anonymous

    Freedom is irreconcilable with Islam.
     
    That is comically ironical, when you consider the hoops through which non-Muslims jump to delude themselves of comprehending their polytheist faiths and deities.

    They say; he is man/woman/animal-like, he begets children, he needs partners, etc., which gives rise to various contrivances like "Harrowing of Hell", etc. These are the real prisoners... spiritual prisoners.

    http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/db0_onegod.htm

    https://www.instagram.com/p/BTDJ-gkD2HC/?hl=en


    True freedom is when you begin to comprehend Him, and the real purpose of this life... that is, to submit to Him, and only Him, and lead righteous lives... no mental gymnastics required.

    Believe in the following and be free;

    He is One, Infinite & Unique.

    Peace.

    , @Bill jones
    Freedom is irreconcilable with"democracy"
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. KA says:

    Morons come and keep on coming They never leave . Western Power structure creates nurtures and manages these morons who know 3. words – freedom democracy and West .

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  27. H. S. says:

    [..1979.]

    “According to the sources of FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, who experienced the revolution directly as a resident of Iran, even the infamous hostage-taking itself was a pre-arranged bit of political theater, designed to play into the anger of the Iranian people at American intervention even as it spared key American personnel from that wrath.”

    “Sibel Edmonds: 14 15 years ago through one of the legal firms that I worked with during my case I I got to know this private part-time investigator the firm had hired. Now this man used to work for the CIA he was an agent and he spent years in Iran during the Shah’s regime. He introduced himself and he actually spoke Farsi, and I speak Farsi. I said “Wow! How did you learn?” He said “Well, I lived in Iran. I worked for the State Department / the agency,” and his cover was [that he was] the radio announcer for the English-language radio in Iran broadcast from the embassy. That’s one of the common covers there.”

    [Now]

    ”Rex Tillerson: Our policy towards Iran is to push back on this hegemony, contain their ability to develop nuclear weapons and to work toward support of those elements inside of Iran that would lead to a peaceful transition of that government. Those elements are there, certainly, as we know.

    SOURCE: Fiscal Year 2018 State Department Budget Hearing

    That same month, it was revealed that the CIA has created a new mission center to focus exclusively on gathering and analyzing intelligence about Iran.

    Ramping the tension up even further, it was reported just this past week that the US has given the green light to Israel to assassinate Qassem Soleimani, the commander of the Quds Force, the overseas arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.”

    We Need to Talk About the Iran Protests :

    https://www.corbettreport.com/episode-326-we-need-to-talk-about-the-iran-protests/

    Read More
    • Replies: @MEexpert
    I thought Tillerson to be a smart guy but then half the things attributed to him are put out by the White House contradicting what he actually said.

    Rex Tillerson: Our policy towards Iran is to push back on this hegemony,
     
    How dare Iran try to undermine our hegemony as well as that of Israel.

    contain their ability to develop nuclear weapons
     
    I wonder if any one from this White House has ever read the Iran deal. This is what the Nuclear deal does. It contains the ability of Iran to develop the Nuclear weapons, which by the way they never had any intention of doing in the first place.

    and to work toward support of those elements inside of Iran that would lead to a peaceful transition of that government.
     
    Where does in the constitution of the United States it says that US should go around changing regimes it doesn't like? Why is it any of our business what type of regime a country has?

    And we talk about Iran's hegemony. It is the USA that wants to maintain its hegemony over the world. What arrogance!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. Randal says:
    @iffen
    Far be it from me to defend PB, whose vainglory delivered us into the hands of George dubya Bush. I defend his article against extraneous comments.

    There’s no reason to equate these latest demonstrations in Iran with the popular dissatisfaction in the US that gave rise to the anti-establishment vote for Trump

    The quality of the reports from Iran is questionable. I have seen reports that the protests accelerated on economic bread and butter issues and that there was an element that demanded less in the way of foreign adventurism vis-à-vis concentration on core Iranian issues.

    I voted for Trump and it was because I thought he was better on economic issues and foreign adventures than Clinton. I am reasonable sure that I was not the only one with that motivation.

    that seems to be wholly wishful thinking on Buchanan’s part, based upon the usual American fantasy that no society that does not kowtow to American ideas about liberal democracy can possibly survive for long

    He didn’t say anything like this. He said:

    For if the protests are about people being denied the freedom and material goods the young enjoy in the West

    Notice the if.

    In 2009, the uprising of millions in Tehran was driven by middle-class rage over an election stolen by the populist President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. ”
    Buchanan ought to know better, here.

    As far as the information that is available informs us, the composition of the protesters does seem to be different.

    the socially radical left are universally very bad losers

    No doubt true, everybody can’t be gracious losers like …

    The 2009 protests were more aptly viewed as an equivalent of the anti-Trump temper tantrums in the US this year, inflamed by well financed dirty tricks from the US.

    This is where you make up shit and force an analogy between Iran and the US. Exactly what you accuse PB of doing. And yes, I know about tu quoque.

    given that interfering in other countries’ political affairs has been the very essence of American behaviour.

    I’ll give you this.

    PB The Iranian protests suggest that the Islamic Revolution, after 40 years, is failing the rising generation.

    there’s no reason to believe the usual American bullshit about the inevitable triumph of social radicalism meaning Iran can only save itself by making itself like America.

    That’s not what he said. He said that a theocracy can’t deliver the same package as liberal democracy, and he is correct. Whether you want that package or not is up to you.

    You have a funnel brain with two sides. On one side is “slam America” and on the other is “blame leftists,” and you pour many words and paragraphs down that funnel and you do it regardless of the subject of the article.

    I must add that I have had regretful wasted time, delicious and savory wasted time, wasted wasted time, and perhaps tedious wasted time, but tendentious wasted time is new to me.

    I suppose greater effort on your part with this response deserves a less dismissive response. The reason I tend to be dismissive is because I am well aware you are by no means as stupid as your desperate efforts to back neocon concerns make you appear, and I rather doubt, when you make a comment as self-evidently point-missing as your first one on this thread, that it should be taken at face value. In general, it’s rarely useful to get involved in lengthy exchanges with lobby obsessives.

    The thrust of your response here seems to be that I’ve been unfair to Buchanan in accusing him of pushing, in relation to Iran, the typical American line that societies have to be socially liberal like America’s in order to survive. You selectively quoted Buchanan to try to support your assertion, but you of course left out key quotes that make my point:

    The Islamic Republic of Iran was not established to create a materially prosperous and socially free society, because, in the ayatollah’s theology, such societies, like the USA, are of the devil and corruptive of the people.

    and:

    As it was not on the side of the Soviets, time is not on the side of the ayatollahs either.

    Buchanan implicitly claims that an “unfree society” (by which he evidently means one that is not as socially and economically liberal as American society) will also fail to deliver material benefits to its people, and tries to claim that this is evidenced by the economic problems experienced by Iran over the past few years. This is of course grossly disingenuous, since it is generally recognised in honest circles that the most obvious cause of Iran’s economic problems is the economic warfare waged by the US and its various proxies. Until that has been disposed of, no economic underperformance by Iran can possibly be used as evidence against its constitutional setup. This is, of course, mere common sense, and to deny it is indicative of ideological or lobby-driven ulterior motive.

    This is where you make up shit and force an analogy between Iran and the US. Exactly what you accuse PB of doing. And yes, I know about tu quoque.

    There was no “making up shit”, and I explicitly stated in my comment that I was drawing an analogy as Buchanan had, only in my case it at least had some plausibility (at least for those not trying to pretend, as you did, that social radicalism is not relative to the status quo in each society).

    You have a funnel brain with two sides. On one side is “slam America” and on the other is “blame leftists,” and you pour many words and paragraphs down that funnel and you do it regardless of the subject of the article.

    It’s regrettable then that you seem to feel a need to read so many of my comments despite that, and to try to interject whenever you think you might have a chance to “trip me up”, even if it requires obtuseness like your nonsense about social radicalism on this thread, which ultimately only discredits you, rather than me. I have absolutely no objection to honest questioning of my arguments (that’s rather the point of setting them out), but I have gained the impression that yours is not honest and therefore I only respond when and to the extent that I think it is useful to do so.

    The twin themes of problems caused by excess US power and its abuse, and the triumph of the left in the US sphere over the past few decades are certainly ones I regard as being of huge importance, and I make no apology for that. Clearly I’m far from the only one here, either below or above the line, who sees one or other, or both, of those as high priorities. Nor do I have any difficulty making either case when needed. Your problem with those issues no doubt stems from your particular loyalties and primary concerns, which clearly are different from mine.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    I suppose greater effort on your part with this response deserves a less dismissive response.

    “Be still, my heart.”

    … you are by no means as stupid as your desperate efforts to back neocon concerns make you appear … with lobby obsessives.

    I wish that I could return the compliment, and would have done so except for the sad accusations that you make here. If you think that I am in the neocon corner, then you are 1) not that bright, 2) dishonest, or 3) haven’t read my comments.

    The thrust of your response

    The thrust of my comment was that you made up a socially radical movement in Iran. The reason that you did was so that you could bring in the real socially radical movement in the West.

    Buchanan implicitly claims that an “unfree society”

    No he doesn’t. It is exactly what I said. Theocracy is not going to deliver the same package as liberal democracy and that is what he said.

    trying to pretend, as you did, that social radicalism is not relative to the status quo in each society).

    No I didn’t. Social radicalism is relative to time and place. In the West it is massive and has the whip hand. In Iran it is practically non-existent.

    whenever you think you might have a chance to “trip me up”… I have absolutely no objection to honest questioning of my arguments (that’s rather the point of setting them out), but I have gained the impression that yours is not honest …

    I don’t have any desire to trip you up. I would like for you to acknowledge that a socially radical movement in Iran is apparently non-existent and interjecting it does not support your argument.

    Your problem with those issues no doubt stems from your particular loyalties and primary concerns

    I am very concerned about the detrimental effects of our real socially radical movement.

    I have noticed that partisans on the left and the right attribute ignorance to their opponents. Careers have been made devoted to little more than supposedly showing that the white working class in the US votes against its self-interest. If accusations of ignorance seem insufficient, both sides will trot out the idea that their opponents are being “duped” by some other group.

    I have noticed that only the extreme right will accuse one of dishonesty if you don’t agree with what is being asserted.

    , @SolontoCroesus

    The Islamic Republic of Iran was not established to create a materially prosperous and socially free society, because, in the ayatollah’s theology, such societies, like the USA, are of the devil and corruptive of the people.
     

    For China’s Global Ambitions, ‘Iran Is at the Center of Everything’
    查看简体中文版 查看繁體中文版
    By THOMAS ERDBRINK JULY 25, 2017
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/25/world/middleeast/iran-china-business-ties.html

    For millenniums, Iran has prospered as a trading hub linking East and West. Now, that role is set to expand in coming years as China unspools its “One Belt, One Road” project, which promises more than $1 trillion in infrastructure investment — bridges, rails, ports and energy — in over 60 countries across Europe, Asia and Africa. Iran, historically a crossroads, is strategically at the center of those plans.
     
    --- and that is why US/Anglo/Israel are harrying Iran -- mostly because demon Zionists don't understand the concept of playing fair, trading fair, putting aside militarism.

    Unfortunately, the Leveretts's former weblog, GoingtoTehran, has been erased; several significant essays they published could enlighten Buchanan (there's no hope for iffen & no sense in making the effort). Flynt and Hillary Leverett began arguing about three years ago that while US (& Israel) were busy trying to ruin Iran & the Middle East, China and others were investing in Iran and creating trade relations -- eating US lunch, while US poured trillions down a gun barrel.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. bluedog says:
    @RadicalCenter
    Didn't Pat conclude by writing that the US should NOT go to war against Iran? How is that imperialist? How is he imperialist in spending decades opposing US interference in numerous countries and conflicts?

    Big difference between “going to war” and instigating internal strife within a country to create its own war as we did back in oh 51/52 , as we did with a number of countries in S.A. with the creation of the death squads,Serbia and a host of others, and I don’t remember him ever condeming those,with Pat its always what serves the American interest..

    Read More
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    >with Pat its always what serves the American interest..

    And is there any other thing that the President should care about? The President of the United States is the first servant of his country, and that alone. He should have no other gods before it. We look out for our interests, because God knows our rivals won't.

    With one major exception, of course: it is in everybody's interest to take potential profit out of war, given that the only other way of creating lasting peace is en masse biological engineering of human beings.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    [For if the protests are about people being denied the freedom and material goods the young enjoy in the West, the protesters are demanding what theocracies do not deliver. How could the ayatollah and the mullahs, who restrict freedom by divine law, accept democratic freedoms without imperiling their own theological dictatorship?]

    I just say get lost impostor. You like your illiterate zionist stooge are liars because you have not mentioned a word about your act of EVIL against Iran and many criminal sanctions you forced upon Iranian people for your geopolitical interests to make Iranian poor so you can bring the country under your criminal control (like during dictator the Shah), yet Iran is resisting and is out of your criminal sphere of influence, that’s why you are so angry and unhappy. If you were under the same pressure, then you would have been more careful to spread lies of the war criminals and thieves to fool the public.

    Your criminal American regime is invading every country with natural resources since 200 years ago. You are a colonist community like the apartheid entity in Palestine, and erected more than 1000 military bases around the world to torture, rape and influence their political and economical system to cash in to feed your dummies, yet the criminal American regime is living off her colonies with over $18 TRILLION DOLLARS debt. Look at the status of your colonies like Haiti, Ukraine, Saudis and many more.

    [The federal government has accumulated $18.2 trillion of debt. In the following chart we can see how much the “public” debt has risen since 2004. In 2004, the federal debt was $7.3 trillion. This rose to $10 trillion when the housing bubble burst four years later.]

    How a country can ‘deliver’ when is under sever illegal sanctions for NO reason except to keep people of that country poor so they poor into the street and YOU cash in liar? Your criminal regimes, are not under any sanctions, where SHOULD BE, for so many committed crimes against humanity. Your zionist entity with hundreds of known crimes against humanity that has comitted is not under UN sanctions and you still are sending a lot of goodies to kill babies and steal from the people in the region. You are living off others and on debt. Imagine $$ is no longer an international currency, where you have forced it upon other countries, then we will see how you ‘live’. YOU HAVE BEEN EXPOSED ALL OVER THE WORLD. You have to get lost from Syria continue your ‘happy life’. Your presence and your bases in Syria ARE ILLEGAL.

    Why don’t you write about these criminal acts and leave Iran to Iranians and people who understand the nature of the EVIL EMPIRE and its political pimps.

    Every criminal agent of EVIL EMPIRE bring this stupid ( “Come Home, Iran” and “Iran First!”)
    slogan, where carried out by the fifth column in Iran, where exposes the petty faces of those who copy this. Iranians are proud to kill Oded Yinon and evil’s plot against Syria and will continue to push the criminal out of the region because THE PEOPLE OF THE REGION CANNOT SUPPORT you ‘happy life’ in America. If your neo liberal economic system is good, then why do you need to kill and steal from other countries? If your economic program is working, then why you are all over the world?
    The reason some people in Iran felt ignored, because Rouhani is forced to implement your neo-liberal economic system, which means stealing from the poor and give it to the rich, EXACTLY LIKE AMERICAN SYSTEM WHERE YOU benefit.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  31. KA says:

    Inside Steve Bannon’s Failed Breitbart India Scheme -The Daily Beast 2015. After reading this article my suspicion generated by earlier abusive self serving habit of this “sloppy” solidified . He is not really against intervention . He is not against screwing working white Americans. He is not against perpetual war. He himself wants to do it . He doesn’t want the Neocons do it . He doesn’t want a piece of the pie . He wants the entirety of it. One way to do it is to burnish the antimuslim image that brims with hatred and menacing opportunistic ideas . This is why his focus is on attacking muslim countries, making muslim pay hell in India and muslim travel ban. He ridiculed the idea of attacking Iraq But he jumped with the gusto to the idea of waging direct and indirect war on Iran and on any muslim country try that he could utter Buchanan gives same impression . Otherwise Buchnaon would have solemnly acknowledged the strength of the Russian argument drawing attention between Ferguson (MO) and Meshad (Iran ) . If he were a genuine noninterventionists or pro life ( being freaking antiabortion on all occasions +cases and being prewar on all cases of potential conflicts in ME – he is not ) he would have looked into the global massacre that America have wrought in recent decades from Honduras Venezuela El Salvador to African and Middel eastern countries extending to Pakistan.

    This fight between Bannon and neocons signifies future direction of the political developments . Elites are coming unglued ,the bond getting unhinged , pie is shrinking , more fingers are trying to reach it and grab it. Saudi Arab shows same pattern ( only a moron will argue that selfishness, nepotism, pursuits of trivial easily available cheap pleasures ,disinterest in things that don’t touch them economically and don’t matter politically are attributes of fossilized fanatic ideology driven countries . Moon better learn fast that those very charecteristics are fabric of American middle class ) and west worry about Saudi .

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  32. nebulafox says:
    @peterAUS
    Wow

    Bottom line: The Islamic Republic of Iran was not established to create a materially prosperous and socially free society, because, in the ayatollah’s theology, such societies, like the USA, are of the devil and corruptive of the people.
    Social freedom is irreconcilable with Iranian theocracy.
    And Iranian hard-liners, clerical and military, are not going to permit protests demanding Western freedom and material goods, to cause them to commit what they believe would be ideological suicide.

    The Iranian protests suggest that the Islamic Revolution, after 40 years, is failing the rising generation. It is hard to see how this is not ominous news for the Iranian regime.
    As it was not on the side of the Soviets, time is not on the side of the ayatollahs either.
     
    Well…Mr. Buchanan is definitely not a hawk.
    He also has better access to the real situation on the ground than most of people posting here.

    I just can’t see any good outcome if his assessment is correct.
    No way that the neocons won’t seize the opportunity in case of anything looking as uprising.
    Any situation even remotely resembling Hungary ‘56, China ’89 and Iraq ‘91 will definitely be seized for an intervention in Iran.

    I just don’t get an impression that the situation is that bad as Mr. Buchanan is describing.
    Confusing.

    No. The American people have made explicitly clear that foreign interventions were not wanted in 2013 over Syria. Give Obama his due: in spite of being pressured daily by the Monday Morning Quarterbacks in both the Senate GOP and his own cabinet, realized his mistake in Libya and refused to put troops on the ground. That took some serious backbone. (The only shameful thing is that he could not, in the end, shed his Harvard professor instincts and support Assad.) Public opinion played as much a role in that as the risk of getting into a direct conflict with Russia and Iran over a conflict that they had far more of a direct stake in than we did.

    Let’s hope Trump learns the same lesson. Because if Operation IRANIAN FREEDOM happens against the vast majority of the people’s will, the Democrats will win in 2020, no matter how loony SJW they go. Iran is three times the size of a Iraq with a basis in national cohesion that no other state in the region except for Israel has, and their military is far, far better trained and prepared than Saddam’s ramshackle post DESERT STORM army was. They can’t possibly “win” against us conventionally, to be sure, but this would be magnitudes more nasty, costly and expensive than IRAQI FREEDOM was. And the people know it.

    Read More
    • Agree: iffen
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. This is quite likely the worst thing I’ve ever read by Pat Buchanan. Very disappointing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  34. nebulafox says:

    I’m perhaps the only one who seems to think that regime change in Tehran is going to make less of a difference in Iran’s foreign policy (domestic policy is another matter) than people think. The 1980s period of Islamic fanaticism under Khomeini is long gone: Iran’s current rulers are pursuing a course abroad that would be, with some detailed exceptions, indistinguishable from what the Shah would be doing: or, for that matter, the Safavids or Sassanids. They want to be the regional hegemon, and by virtue of their weight and populace, will eventually be if they don’t screw it up.

    This is far from unprecedented: revolutionary states sustain their ideological fervor for a time, but if they don’t manage to blow things up and cause outside powers to intervene, it’ll fade, and the natural psychology and ways of the underlying culture will reassert itself. Kennan noted that this transitioned happened to the USSR under Stalin in the late 1940s: while it remained supportive of Third World leftist insurgencies and hostile to the US, it far more resembled an old-style Muscovite imperium (complete with old-fashioned Russian governmental traits, such as anti-Semitism, paranoia and inferiority complexes regarding the West-note that Lenin, in contrast, was quite the Westernizer, quite the anti-anti-Semite, and particularly, a Germanophile who despaired of Russia’s “backwardness” and “Asiaticness”) that was atheistically and technocratically inclined rather than bearing the Orthodox swords of old. Nixon and Lee Kwan Yew made a similar observation about China in the 1970s: Mao was just another dynasty founder in the long run, who would make some permanent changes but would also melt back into the Confucian tapestry like they all did. (As did, ironically enough, Mao himself in 1972 when meeting Nixon. “I have only changed some buildings around Beijing…”) Does China today support revolution? No. It is the counter-revolutionary giant, which is China’s traditional role in the region.

    Iran is undergoing a similar transformation now-or arguably has been for the past decade or two. Just as with the other two, ideological influences remain-in particular in the fanatical anti-Semitism of the regime in Tehran, an extremely sad break from traditional Persian tolerance and even warmness for Jews, in stark contrast to the Arab World-but nevertheless, the change from the 1980s should be very visible. Khomeini’s vision of a pan-Islamic movement has even been cast aside in favor of Shi’a militancy. The Persians have only been Shi’a for about 500 years. They’ve been Persian since before Western civilization was even born.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Excellent!
    , @SolontoCroesus

    Just as with the other two, ideological influences remain-in particular in the fanatical anti-Semitism of the regime in Tehran, an extremely sad break from traditional Persian tolerance and even warmness for Jews, in stark contrast to the Arab World
     
    Really, it's Jews who have to get over finding anti semitism under every pebble and grain of sand.

    My Iranian friends don't hate Jews, and Jews who live in Iran and consider themselves Iranians who happen to be Jewish don't want to live anywhere else -- not Israel, not Tehrangeles; they are Iranian.

    It's fair to tag Iranian leadership as anti-zionist: that's just basic morality and common sense: who could possibly be in favor of a government/political movement that brutalizes people it has first dispossessed, and is attempting to undermine and overthrow Iran's economy and government?

    Jews and people who write about ME affairs really need a long soak in brain bleach, and to stop jumping so quickly to the antisemite neural pathway and, instead, examine the context, situation, and cause-and-effect relationships more intelligently.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. nebulafox says:
    @bluedog
    Big difference between "going to war" and instigating internal strife within a country to create its own war as we did back in oh 51/52 , as we did with a number of countries in S.A. with the creation of the death squads,Serbia and a host of others, and I don't remember him ever condeming those,with Pat its always what serves the American interest..

    >with Pat its always what serves the American interest..

    And is there any other thing that the President should care about? The President of the United States is the first servant of his country, and that alone. He should have no other gods before it. We look out for our interests, because God knows our rivals won’t.

    With one major exception, of course: it is in everybody’s interest to take potential profit out of war, given that the only other way of creating lasting peace is en masse biological engineering of human beings.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    ....it is in everybody’s interest to take potential profit out of war, given that the only other way of creating lasting peace is en masse biological engineering of human beings.
     
    "Potential profit" caught my eye.

    You appear to be on the topic, post concise comments with no name calling.
    Quite refreshing among one liners and creeps galore here.

    In your opinion, would the war with Iran be "good for US economy"?

    I've done some research on that topic and remain confused; experts appear to be split even regardless of ideology.
    Some attempts to discuss that here had similar results.
    I don't expect that you'd provide a definitive answer, just an opinion.

    In fact, to be precise: would the war with Iran deliver jobs for Trump base?

    And, to be even more precise the war would be high-tech air-sea power related, with a possibility of occupation of Hormuz. NOT the regime change/occupation of Iran.

    Taking into account this latest....whatever....with the book about internal workings of Trump administration the war would be a very good distraction, consolidation,and if good for economy...what is there not to like it?
    , @bluedog
    No he is a servant of the people first and formost and then a servant of the country, and of course there's a river between the being a servant of the people or the country when he serves only as the servant of the military/industrial group which only serves the profit...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. iffen says:
    @nebulafox
    I'm perhaps the only one who seems to think that regime change in Tehran is going to make less of a difference in Iran's foreign policy (domestic policy is another matter) than people think. The 1980s period of Islamic fanaticism under Khomeini is long gone: Iran's current rulers are pursuing a course abroad that would be, with some detailed exceptions, indistinguishable from what the Shah would be doing: or, for that matter, the Safavids or Sassanids. They want to be the regional hegemon, and by virtue of their weight and populace, will eventually be if they don't screw it up.

    This is far from unprecedented: revolutionary states sustain their ideological fervor for a time, but if they don't manage to blow things up and cause outside powers to intervene, it'll fade, and the natural psychology and ways of the underlying culture will reassert itself. Kennan noted that this transitioned happened to the USSR under Stalin in the late 1940s: while it remained supportive of Third World leftist insurgencies and hostile to the US, it far more resembled an old-style Muscovite imperium (complete with old-fashioned Russian governmental traits, such as anti-Semitism, paranoia and inferiority complexes regarding the West-note that Lenin, in contrast, was quite the Westernizer, quite the anti-anti-Semite, and particularly, a Germanophile who despaired of Russia's "backwardness" and "Asiaticness") that was atheistically and technocratically inclined rather than bearing the Orthodox swords of old. Nixon and Lee Kwan Yew made a similar observation about China in the 1970s: Mao was just another dynasty founder in the long run, who would make some permanent changes but would also melt back into the Confucian tapestry like they all did. (As did, ironically enough, Mao himself in 1972 when meeting Nixon. "I have only changed some buildings around Beijing...") Does China today support revolution? No. It is the counter-revolutionary giant, which is China's traditional role in the region.

    Iran is undergoing a similar transformation now-or arguably has been for the past decade or two. Just as with the other two, ideological influences remain-in particular in the fanatical anti-Semitism of the regime in Tehran, an extremely sad break from traditional Persian tolerance and even warmness for Jews, in stark contrast to the Arab World-but nevertheless, the change from the 1980s should be very visible. Khomeini's vision of a pan-Islamic movement has even been cast aside in favor of Shi'a militancy. The Persians have only been Shi'a for about 500 years. They've been Persian since before Western civilization was even born.

    Excellent!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. polistra says:

    Pat turns neocon. Last bastion of sanity falls.

    Please, Putin! Take us off the planet. We have lost our entitlement to exist.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  38. @H. S.
    EMPOWER WOMEN In Iran, France, Québec, US of A, UK, Europe, China, and Russia.

    As the song says:


    ''C'est pas d'un cerveau feminine
    Qu'est sortie la bombe atomique
    Et pas une femme n'a sur les mains
    Le sang des Indiens d'Amérique



    Et quand viendra l'heure dernière
    L'enfer s'ra peuplé de crétins
    Jouant au foot ou a la guerre
    A celui qui pisse le plus loin
    .....''


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJcUMKGCdrY

    “Le sang des Indiens d’Amérique”

    Well….that’s easy for you to say.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. nebulafox says:
    @anon
    "Social freedom is irreconcilable with Iranian theocracy".

    Freedom is irreconcilable with Islam.

    I wouldn’t necessarily go that far, but it does seem to take an Ataturk-esque leader willing to castrate many aspects of the religion to make it happen. This shouldn’t be unexpected, really: Islam never had the Enlightenment of the 1700s. Among other radical changes, the idea of separation of church and state came into the fore during those years.

    Note that this isn’t limited to the Islamic World: in Russia, traditionally, the idea of “symphonia” underlies the unity of the Orthodox Church and the state, in venerable Byzantine fashion. Feudalism only began to totter apart in Russia in the latter 1800s, unlike in the West, and it would only be with the Bolsheviks that the power of the Orthodox Church was smashed. (And unlike the post-Napoleonic peace found between religion and state in Europe proper, the suppression would be violent, ugly, and accomplished by decades of terror that made the Reign of Terror look like a ripple.)

    Symphonia has made a significant comeback lately: it plays a very integral part in Putin’s regime. Which is less surprising than it may sound, as Josef Stalin, that failed Orthodox seminarian, took a rather interesting policy turn on the churches well into his reign when he realized its importance for morale among ordinary Russians in WWII… swiss-cheesing it with secret police agents.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. iffen says:
    @Randal
    I suppose greater effort on your part with this response deserves a less dismissive response. The reason I tend to be dismissive is because I am well aware you are by no means as stupid as your desperate efforts to back neocon concerns make you appear, and I rather doubt, when you make a comment as self-evidently point-missing as your first one on this thread, that it should be taken at face value. In general, it's rarely useful to get involved in lengthy exchanges with lobby obsessives.

    The thrust of your response here seems to be that I've been unfair to Buchanan in accusing him of pushing, in relation to Iran, the typical American line that societies have to be socially liberal like America's in order to survive. You selectively quoted Buchanan to try to support your assertion, but you of course left out key quotes that make my point:

    "The Islamic Republic of Iran was not established to create a materially prosperous and socially free society, because, in the ayatollah’s theology, such societies, like the USA, are of the devil and corruptive of the people."

    and:

    "As it was not on the side of the Soviets, time is not on the side of the ayatollahs either."

    Buchanan implicitly claims that an "unfree society" (by which he evidently means one that is not as socially and economically liberal as American society) will also fail to deliver material benefits to its people, and tries to claim that this is evidenced by the economic problems experienced by Iran over the past few years. This is of course grossly disingenuous, since it is generally recognised in honest circles that the most obvious cause of Iran's economic problems is the economic warfare waged by the US and its various proxies. Until that has been disposed of, no economic underperformance by Iran can possibly be used as evidence against its constitutional setup. This is, of course, mere common sense, and to deny it is indicative of ideological or lobby-driven ulterior motive.


    This is where you make up shit and force an analogy between Iran and the US. Exactly what you accuse PB of doing. And yes, I know about tu quoque.
     
    There was no "making up shit", and I explicitly stated in my comment that I was drawing an analogy as Buchanan had, only in my case it at least had some plausibility (at least for those not trying to pretend, as you did, that social radicalism is not relative to the status quo in each society).


    You have a funnel brain with two sides. On one side is “slam America” and on the other is “blame leftists,” and you pour many words and paragraphs down that funnel and you do it regardless of the subject of the article.
     
    It's regrettable then that you seem to feel a need to read so many of my comments despite that, and to try to interject whenever you think you might have a chance to "trip me up", even if it requires obtuseness like your nonsense about social radicalism on this thread, which ultimately only discredits you, rather than me. I have absolutely no objection to honest questioning of my arguments (that's rather the point of setting them out), but I have gained the impression that yours is not honest and therefore I only respond when and to the extent that I think it is useful to do so.

    The twin themes of problems caused by excess US power and its abuse, and the triumph of the left in the US sphere over the past few decades are certainly ones I regard as being of huge importance, and I make no apology for that. Clearly I'm far from the only one here, either below or above the line, who sees one or other, or both, of those as high priorities. Nor do I have any difficulty making either case when needed. Your problem with those issues no doubt stems from your particular loyalties and primary concerns, which clearly are different from mine.

    I suppose greater effort on your part with this response deserves a less dismissive response.

    “Be still, my heart.”

    … you are by no means as stupid as your desperate efforts to back neocon concerns make you appear … with lobby obsessives.

    I wish that I could return the compliment, and would have done so except for the sad accusations that you make here. If you think that I am in the neocon corner, then you are 1) not that bright, 2) dishonest, or 3) haven’t read my comments.

    The thrust of your response

    The thrust of my comment was that you made up a socially radical movement in Iran. The reason that you did was so that you could bring in the real socially radical movement in the West.

    Buchanan implicitly claims that an “unfree society”

    No he doesn’t. It is exactly what I said. Theocracy is not going to deliver the same package as liberal democracy and that is what he said.

    trying to pretend, as you did, that social radicalism is not relative to the status quo in each society).

    No I didn’t. Social radicalism is relative to time and place. In the West it is massive and has the whip hand. In Iran it is practically non-existent.

    whenever you think you might have a chance to “trip me up”… I have absolutely no objection to honest questioning of my arguments (that’s rather the point of setting them out), but I have gained the impression that yours is not honest …

    I don’t have any desire to trip you up. I would like for you to acknowledge that a socially radical movement in Iran is apparently non-existent and interjecting it does not support your argument.

    Your problem with those issues no doubt stems from your particular loyalties and primary concerns

    I am very concerned about the detrimental effects of our real socially radical movement.

    I have noticed that partisans on the left and the right attribute ignorance to their opponents. Careers have been made devoted to little more than supposedly showing that the white working class in the US votes against its self-interest. If accusations of ignorance seem insufficient, both sides will trot out the idea that their opponents are being “duped” by some other group.

    I have noticed that only the extreme right will accuse one of dishonesty if you don’t agree with what is being asserted.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    The thrust of my comment was that you made up a socially radical movement in Iran. The reason that you did was so that you could bring in the real socially radical movement in the West.
     
    Whereas in reality there certainly is a socially radical movement in Iran, though it is obviously not as dominant as the one in the US sphere. That's what the liberalising "reform" movement in Iranian politics represents, precisely.

    It is presently under control, and its defeats in the election of 2009 and in the subsequent US-backed temper tantrum are among the reasons it is still under control.

    That's why the parallel I drew was apt, unlike Buchanan's which was pure speculation based upon little or no reliable information about the current unrest.

    If you think that I am in the neocon corner, then you are 1) not that bright, 2) dishonest, or 3) haven’t read my comments.
     
    Neocon might admittedly be imprecise, since your concerns as they've impinged upon my attention here have been less about broader neocon politics and more directly focussed upon protecting Israeli/jewish lobby interests, which are generally at the heart of the neocon movement in practice but don't exhaust it. I'm not alone in noticing this, you are generally viewed here as an extreme apologist for jewish/Israeli concerns, as numerous commenters have asserted (don't try to pretend you haven't noticed).


    No he doesn’t. It is exactly what I said. Theocracy is not going to deliver the same package as liberal democracy and that is what he said.
     
    Buchanan said explicitly and repeatedly that the Iranian constitutional system cannot, without changing into something else, give the demonstrators what he speculated that they wanted, which was (in his very own words): "the freedom and material goods the young enjoy in the West", and the whole thrust of his piece was that they would not survive if he did not give them those things (he even drew an explicit parallel with the demise of the Soviet Union).

    In other words, as I originally pointed out, he is arguing that the Iranian system needs to liberalise both socially and economically in order to survive.

    You then asserted: "That’s not what he said. He said that a theocracy can’t deliver the same package as liberal democracy, and he is correct. ", with the implication that it was somehow pointing out an error in my (in fact broadly accurate) description of his view. But in fact "a theocracy can't deliver the same package as liberal democracy" is common to both Buchanan's original piece and my presentation of it, so your supposed refutation contained no refuting information or argument.

    Do you understand the issues and your errors yet or do they need further tedious explanation?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. peterAUS says:
    @nebulafox
    >with Pat its always what serves the American interest..

    And is there any other thing that the President should care about? The President of the United States is the first servant of his country, and that alone. He should have no other gods before it. We look out for our interests, because God knows our rivals won't.

    With one major exception, of course: it is in everybody's interest to take potential profit out of war, given that the only other way of creating lasting peace is en masse biological engineering of human beings.

    ….it is in everybody’s interest to take potential profit out of war, given that the only other way of creating lasting peace is en masse biological engineering of human beings.

    “Potential profit” caught my eye.

    You appear to be on the topic, post concise comments with no name calling.
    Quite refreshing among one liners and creeps galore here.

    In your opinion, would the war with Iran be “good for US economy”?

    I’ve done some research on that topic and remain confused; experts appear to be split even regardless of ideology.
    Some attempts to discuss that here had similar results.
    I don’t expect that you’d provide a definitive answer, just an opinion.

    In fact, to be precise: would the war with Iran deliver jobs for Trump base?

    And, to be even more precise the war would be high-tech air-sea power related, with a possibility of occupation of Hormuz. NOT the regime change/occupation of Iran.

    Taking into account this latest….whatever….with the book about internal workings of Trump administration the war would be a very good distraction, consolidation,and if good for economy…what is there not to like it?

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous

    Taking into account this latest….whatever….with the book about internal workings of Trump administration the war would be a very good distraction, consolidation,and if good for economy…what is there not to like it?
     
    You're writing this from boot-camp, having signed up??

    Didn't think so.
    , @nebulafox
    >In your opinion, would the war with Iran be “good for US economy”?

    Absolutely not. Just the opposite. It would be an even more horrendous version of Iraq: a vast waste of trillions of dollars-money that we don't even have-in a strategically unwinnable conflict. Wars are expensive, and wars of this variety-3rd world interventions undertaken for nebulous purposes in societies we barely understand-rarely lead to the mass innovation of the sort you saw with WWII or the Cold War as a whole.

    >I don’t expect that you’d provide a definitive answer, just an opinion.

    Absolutely. I'm a random commentator, and nothing but.

    >In fact, to be precise: would the war with Iran deliver jobs for Trump base?

    For the most part, no. I suspect that this kind of thing would be the one thing that could get them to abandon him. Economic betrayals, they knew from the very start they ran the risk of as they gambled on him. This is quite different.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. bluedog says:
    @nebulafox
    >with Pat its always what serves the American interest..

    And is there any other thing that the President should care about? The President of the United States is the first servant of his country, and that alone. He should have no other gods before it. We look out for our interests, because God knows our rivals won't.

    With one major exception, of course: it is in everybody's interest to take potential profit out of war, given that the only other way of creating lasting peace is en masse biological engineering of human beings.

    No he is a servant of the people first and formost and then a servant of the country, and of course there’s a river between the being a servant of the people or the country when he serves only as the servant of the military/industrial group which only serves the profit…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. @Randal
    I suppose greater effort on your part with this response deserves a less dismissive response. The reason I tend to be dismissive is because I am well aware you are by no means as stupid as your desperate efforts to back neocon concerns make you appear, and I rather doubt, when you make a comment as self-evidently point-missing as your first one on this thread, that it should be taken at face value. In general, it's rarely useful to get involved in lengthy exchanges with lobby obsessives.

    The thrust of your response here seems to be that I've been unfair to Buchanan in accusing him of pushing, in relation to Iran, the typical American line that societies have to be socially liberal like America's in order to survive. You selectively quoted Buchanan to try to support your assertion, but you of course left out key quotes that make my point:

    "The Islamic Republic of Iran was not established to create a materially prosperous and socially free society, because, in the ayatollah’s theology, such societies, like the USA, are of the devil and corruptive of the people."

    and:

    "As it was not on the side of the Soviets, time is not on the side of the ayatollahs either."

    Buchanan implicitly claims that an "unfree society" (by which he evidently means one that is not as socially and economically liberal as American society) will also fail to deliver material benefits to its people, and tries to claim that this is evidenced by the economic problems experienced by Iran over the past few years. This is of course grossly disingenuous, since it is generally recognised in honest circles that the most obvious cause of Iran's economic problems is the economic warfare waged by the US and its various proxies. Until that has been disposed of, no economic underperformance by Iran can possibly be used as evidence against its constitutional setup. This is, of course, mere common sense, and to deny it is indicative of ideological or lobby-driven ulterior motive.


    This is where you make up shit and force an analogy between Iran and the US. Exactly what you accuse PB of doing. And yes, I know about tu quoque.
     
    There was no "making up shit", and I explicitly stated in my comment that I was drawing an analogy as Buchanan had, only in my case it at least had some plausibility (at least for those not trying to pretend, as you did, that social radicalism is not relative to the status quo in each society).


    You have a funnel brain with two sides. On one side is “slam America” and on the other is “blame leftists,” and you pour many words and paragraphs down that funnel and you do it regardless of the subject of the article.
     
    It's regrettable then that you seem to feel a need to read so many of my comments despite that, and to try to interject whenever you think you might have a chance to "trip me up", even if it requires obtuseness like your nonsense about social radicalism on this thread, which ultimately only discredits you, rather than me. I have absolutely no objection to honest questioning of my arguments (that's rather the point of setting them out), but I have gained the impression that yours is not honest and therefore I only respond when and to the extent that I think it is useful to do so.

    The twin themes of problems caused by excess US power and its abuse, and the triumph of the left in the US sphere over the past few decades are certainly ones I regard as being of huge importance, and I make no apology for that. Clearly I'm far from the only one here, either below or above the line, who sees one or other, or both, of those as high priorities. Nor do I have any difficulty making either case when needed. Your problem with those issues no doubt stems from your particular loyalties and primary concerns, which clearly are different from mine.

    The Islamic Republic of Iran was not established to create a materially prosperous and socially free society, because, in the ayatollah’s theology, such societies, like the USA, are of the devil and corruptive of the people.

    For China’s Global Ambitions, ‘Iran Is at the Center of Everything’
    查看简体中文版 查看繁體中文版
    By THOMAS ERDBRINK JULY 25, 2017

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/25/world/middleeast/iran-china-business-ties.html

    For millenniums, Iran has prospered as a trading hub linking East and West. Now, that role is set to expand in coming years as China unspools its “One Belt, One Road” project, which promises more than $1 trillion in infrastructure investment — bridges, rails, ports and energy — in over 60 countries across Europe, Asia and Africa. Iran, historically a crossroads, is strategically at the center of those plans.

    — and that is why US/Anglo/Israel are harrying Iran — mostly because demon Zionists don’t understand the concept of playing fair, trading fair, putting aside militarism.

    Unfortunately, the Leveretts’s former weblog, GoingtoTehran, has been erased; several significant essays they published could enlighten Buchanan (there’s no hope for iffen & no sense in making the effort). Flynt and Hillary Leverett began arguing about three years ago that while US (& Israel) were busy trying to ruin Iran & the Middle East, China and others were investing in Iran and creating trade relations — eating US lunch, while US poured trillions down a gun barrel.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    Unfortunately, that merely increases the interest on the part of the war lobbies in furthering the spread of bloody chaos in the region, in order to ensure that China and others don't profit in the long run from their constructive investments.
    , @iffen
    demon Zionists

    What other kind is there?

    (there’s no hope for iffen & no sense in making the effort)

    Aww, now you are just deliberately being hurtful.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. @nebulafox
    I'm perhaps the only one who seems to think that regime change in Tehran is going to make less of a difference in Iran's foreign policy (domestic policy is another matter) than people think. The 1980s period of Islamic fanaticism under Khomeini is long gone: Iran's current rulers are pursuing a course abroad that would be, with some detailed exceptions, indistinguishable from what the Shah would be doing: or, for that matter, the Safavids or Sassanids. They want to be the regional hegemon, and by virtue of their weight and populace, will eventually be if they don't screw it up.

    This is far from unprecedented: revolutionary states sustain their ideological fervor for a time, but if they don't manage to blow things up and cause outside powers to intervene, it'll fade, and the natural psychology and ways of the underlying culture will reassert itself. Kennan noted that this transitioned happened to the USSR under Stalin in the late 1940s: while it remained supportive of Third World leftist insurgencies and hostile to the US, it far more resembled an old-style Muscovite imperium (complete with old-fashioned Russian governmental traits, such as anti-Semitism, paranoia and inferiority complexes regarding the West-note that Lenin, in contrast, was quite the Westernizer, quite the anti-anti-Semite, and particularly, a Germanophile who despaired of Russia's "backwardness" and "Asiaticness") that was atheistically and technocratically inclined rather than bearing the Orthodox swords of old. Nixon and Lee Kwan Yew made a similar observation about China in the 1970s: Mao was just another dynasty founder in the long run, who would make some permanent changes but would also melt back into the Confucian tapestry like they all did. (As did, ironically enough, Mao himself in 1972 when meeting Nixon. "I have only changed some buildings around Beijing...") Does China today support revolution? No. It is the counter-revolutionary giant, which is China's traditional role in the region.

    Iran is undergoing a similar transformation now-or arguably has been for the past decade or two. Just as with the other two, ideological influences remain-in particular in the fanatical anti-Semitism of the regime in Tehran, an extremely sad break from traditional Persian tolerance and even warmness for Jews, in stark contrast to the Arab World-but nevertheless, the change from the 1980s should be very visible. Khomeini's vision of a pan-Islamic movement has even been cast aside in favor of Shi'a militancy. The Persians have only been Shi'a for about 500 years. They've been Persian since before Western civilization was even born.

    Just as with the other two, ideological influences remain-in particular in the fanatical anti-Semitism of the regime in Tehran, an extremely sad break from traditional Persian tolerance and even warmness for Jews, in stark contrast to the Arab World

    Really, it’s Jews who have to get over finding anti semitism under every pebble and grain of sand.

    My Iranian friends don’t hate Jews, and Jews who live in Iran and consider themselves Iranians who happen to be Jewish don’t want to live anywhere else — not Israel, not Tehrangeles; they are Iranian.

    It’s fair to tag Iranian leadership as anti-zionist: that’s just basic morality and common sense: who could possibly be in favor of a government/political movement that brutalizes people it has first dispossessed, and is attempting to undermine and overthrow Iran’s economy and government?

    Jews and people who write about ME affairs really need a long soak in brain bleach, and to stop jumping so quickly to the antisemite neural pathway and, instead, examine the context, situation, and cause-and-effect relationships more intelligently.

    Read More
    • Agree: Randal
    • Replies: @L.K
    Nebulafox is another Zionist/ IsraHell supporter.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @peterAUS

    ....it is in everybody’s interest to take potential profit out of war, given that the only other way of creating lasting peace is en masse biological engineering of human beings.
     
    "Potential profit" caught my eye.

    You appear to be on the topic, post concise comments with no name calling.
    Quite refreshing among one liners and creeps galore here.

    In your opinion, would the war with Iran be "good for US economy"?

    I've done some research on that topic and remain confused; experts appear to be split even regardless of ideology.
    Some attempts to discuss that here had similar results.
    I don't expect that you'd provide a definitive answer, just an opinion.

    In fact, to be precise: would the war with Iran deliver jobs for Trump base?

    And, to be even more precise the war would be high-tech air-sea power related, with a possibility of occupation of Hormuz. NOT the regime change/occupation of Iran.

    Taking into account this latest....whatever....with the book about internal workings of Trump administration the war would be a very good distraction, consolidation,and if good for economy...what is there not to like it?

    Taking into account this latest….whatever….with the book about internal workings of Trump administration the war would be a very good distraction, consolidation,and if good for economy…what is there not to like it?

    You’re writing this from boot-camp, having signed up??

    Didn’t think so.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. nebulafox says:
    @peterAUS

    ....it is in everybody’s interest to take potential profit out of war, given that the only other way of creating lasting peace is en masse biological engineering of human beings.
     
    "Potential profit" caught my eye.

    You appear to be on the topic, post concise comments with no name calling.
    Quite refreshing among one liners and creeps galore here.

    In your opinion, would the war with Iran be "good for US economy"?

    I've done some research on that topic and remain confused; experts appear to be split even regardless of ideology.
    Some attempts to discuss that here had similar results.
    I don't expect that you'd provide a definitive answer, just an opinion.

    In fact, to be precise: would the war with Iran deliver jobs for Trump base?

    And, to be even more precise the war would be high-tech air-sea power related, with a possibility of occupation of Hormuz. NOT the regime change/occupation of Iran.

    Taking into account this latest....whatever....with the book about internal workings of Trump administration the war would be a very good distraction, consolidation,and if good for economy...what is there not to like it?

    >In your opinion, would the war with Iran be “good for US economy”?

    Absolutely not. Just the opposite. It would be an even more horrendous version of Iraq: a vast waste of trillions of dollars-money that we don’t even have-in a strategically unwinnable conflict. Wars are expensive, and wars of this variety-3rd world interventions undertaken for nebulous purposes in societies we barely understand-rarely lead to the mass innovation of the sort you saw with WWII or the Cold War as a whole.

    >I don’t expect that you’d provide a definitive answer, just an opinion.

    Absolutely. I’m a random commentator, and nothing but.

    >In fact, to be precise: would the war with Iran deliver jobs for Trump base?

    For the most part, no. I suspect that this kind of thing would be the one thing that could get them to abandon him. Economic betrayals, they knew from the very start they ran the risk of as they gambled on him. This is quite different.

    Read More
    • Agree: iffen
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. bjondo says:

    khamenei also criticized rouhani’s policies in similar words to the legit protesters. the violent fill ins were cia/mossad thugs.

    those denouncing khamenei were paid, gathered by cia in its slavish not-america-first actions to support israel.

    the supporters were in support of their govt not in support of ‘the regime’.

    those thugs should be frog marched to some quiet place somewhere in some desert.

    iranians, young and old, know about the wonders brought the west as seen in syria, libya, somalia, afganistan, sudan, egypt, jordan, yemen. and as seen in ‘deplorable’ america.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  48. MEexpert says:
    @H. S.
    [..1979.]

    "According to the sources of FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, who experienced the revolution directly as a resident of Iran, even the infamous hostage-taking itself was a pre-arranged bit of political theater, designed to play into the anger of the Iranian people at American intervention even as it spared key American personnel from that wrath."


    "Sibel Edmonds: 14 15 years ago through one of the legal firms that I worked with during my case I I got to know this private part-time investigator the firm had hired. Now this man used to work for the CIA he was an agent and he spent years in Iran during the Shah’s regime. He introduced himself and he actually spoke Farsi, and I speak Farsi. I said “Wow! How did you learn?” He said “Well, I lived in Iran. I worked for the State Department / the agency,” and his cover was [that he was] the radio announcer for the English-language radio in Iran broadcast from the embassy. That’s one of the common covers there."

    [Now]


    ''Rex Tillerson: Our policy towards Iran is to push back on this hegemony, contain their ability to develop nuclear weapons and to work toward support of those elements inside of Iran that would lead to a peaceful transition of that government. Those elements are there, certainly, as we know.

    SOURCE: Fiscal Year 2018 State Department Budget Hearing

    That same month, it was revealed that the CIA has created a new mission center to focus exclusively on gathering and analyzing intelligence about Iran.

    Ramping the tension up even further, it was reported just this past week that the US has given the green light to Israel to assassinate Qassem Soleimani, the commander of the Quds Force, the overseas arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.''

    We Need to Talk About the Iran Protests :

    https://www.corbettreport.com/episode-326-we-need-to-talk-about-the-iran-protests/

    I thought Tillerson to be a smart guy but then half the things attributed to him are put out by the White House contradicting what he actually said.

    Rex Tillerson: Our policy towards Iran is to push back on this hegemony,

    How dare Iran try to undermine our hegemony as well as that of Israel.

    contain their ability to develop nuclear weapons

    I wonder if any one from this White House has ever read the Iran deal. This is what the Nuclear deal does. It contains the ability of Iran to develop the Nuclear weapons, which by the way they never had any intention of doing in the first place.

    and to work toward support of those elements inside of Iran that would lead to a peaceful transition of that government.

    Where does in the constitution of the United States it says that US should go around changing regimes it doesn’t like? Why is it any of our business what type of regime a country has?

    And we talk about Iran’s hegemony. It is the USA that wants to maintain its hegemony over the world. What arrogance!

    Read More
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    With the Trump White House, who actually said what requires more effort to decipher than the policies themselves, with all the mutually contradicting narratives being pushed out.

    >Rex Tillerson: Our policy towards Iran is to push back on this hegemony,

    Iranian hegemony in the Levant is not directly against US interests. In some ways, it works out quite nicely for us. And again: if the Shah were still in power, he'd be doing the exact same thing in pursing regional hegemony and atomic weapons.

    >contain their ability to develop nuclear weapons

    That program that started under the Shah? And how do they propose to do that, short of pre-emptive war? We've given Iran every incentive to develop nuclear weapons over the past couple of decades, and that won't change regardless of who is in charge in Tehran.

    >and to work toward support of those elements inside of Iran that would lead to a peaceful transition of that government.

    Those elements will still likely be Persian nationalists who are likely not interested in whatever fantastic vision the GOP has in mind.

    >Why is it any of our business what type of regime a country has?

    Expecting logic from neocons is pointless.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. nebulafox says:
    @MEexpert
    I thought Tillerson to be a smart guy but then half the things attributed to him are put out by the White House contradicting what he actually said.

    Rex Tillerson: Our policy towards Iran is to push back on this hegemony,
     
    How dare Iran try to undermine our hegemony as well as that of Israel.

    contain their ability to develop nuclear weapons
     
    I wonder if any one from this White House has ever read the Iran deal. This is what the Nuclear deal does. It contains the ability of Iran to develop the Nuclear weapons, which by the way they never had any intention of doing in the first place.

    and to work toward support of those elements inside of Iran that would lead to a peaceful transition of that government.
     
    Where does in the constitution of the United States it says that US should go around changing regimes it doesn't like? Why is it any of our business what type of regime a country has?

    And we talk about Iran's hegemony. It is the USA that wants to maintain its hegemony over the world. What arrogance!

    With the Trump White House, who actually said what requires more effort to decipher than the policies themselves, with all the mutually contradicting narratives being pushed out.

    >Rex Tillerson: Our policy towards Iran is to push back on this hegemony,

    Iranian hegemony in the Levant is not directly against US interests. In some ways, it works out quite nicely for us. And again: if the Shah were still in power, he’d be doing the exact same thing in pursing regional hegemony and atomic weapons.

    >contain their ability to develop nuclear weapons

    That program that started under the Shah? And how do they propose to do that, short of pre-emptive war? We’ve given Iran every incentive to develop nuclear weapons over the past couple of decades, and that won’t change regardless of who is in charge in Tehran.

    >and to work toward support of those elements inside of Iran that would lead to a peaceful transition of that government.

    Those elements will still likely be Persian nationalists who are likely not interested in whatever fantastic vision the GOP has in mind.

    >Why is it any of our business what type of regime a country has?

    Expecting logic from neocons is pointless.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    " in pursing (sic) regional hegemony and atomic weapons."

    Nonsense! They simply seek the means (defences) necessary to maintain their independence and sovereignty and given the recent history of outside meddling in the region it is hardly paranoid behaviour to do so.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    If there is an Iranian uprising and it results in a Tiananmen Square slaughter in Tehran, do we really want the U.S., which would not likely intervene to save the patriots, held morally accountable?

    AmeriKKKa, or more collectively The West, and morally accountable?!

    Much of the turmoil in the present world, the world I am able to witness, can be traced to White Supremacy. White Supremacy is fundamentally the antithesis of Morally Accountable.

    When will the likes of Pat, the racist Christian conservative hypocrites, stop talking such deceitful nonsense?

    -

    I just read an essay about something related;

    https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/01/05/hey-white-people-weve-got-to-stop-claiming-were-not-racist/

    But, as the following quote implies, there is not much hope that this guy’s call will be heeded. Sure, there will be many who will rejoice, and say that is the way it is meant to be, but if you believe in a Higher Being, do you think that is the way He meant it to be?

    [I would like to tell you that such a day approaches when the people who believe themselves to be white renounce this demon religion [i.e. “white supremacism”] and begin to think of themselves as human. But I can see no real promise of such a day.]

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    #It's Okay To Be White
    , @Wyatt Pendleton
    "When will the likes of Pat, the racist Christian conservative hypocrites, stop talking such deceitful nonsense?"

    Patrick Buchanan is a Roman Catholic. RC's only read the Bible superficially and only when their priest tells them what it means. Because he's RC he believes in a Kingdom now view where the RC Pope will rule the world from Jerusalem and Rome for 1000 years then Christ will come down from heaven and blow all the good boys/girls for straightening out those filthy non-Christians by the sword. RC's eagerly look forward to getting their hands bloody turning the world in their vision.

    As a Baptist I believe the opposite. Christians are to preach and teach the Gospel of Christ without laying a single hand of violence (Golden Rule) on anyone. If a person rejects Christ as Savior then when they die God will judge them and do what He will, not the human agent. Christ doesn't want me to touch a single soul and if they want me to leave, I'm to shake the dust off my feet and leave them alone.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. Randal says:
    @iffen
    I suppose greater effort on your part with this response deserves a less dismissive response.

    “Be still, my heart.”

    … you are by no means as stupid as your desperate efforts to back neocon concerns make you appear … with lobby obsessives.

    I wish that I could return the compliment, and would have done so except for the sad accusations that you make here. If you think that I am in the neocon corner, then you are 1) not that bright, 2) dishonest, or 3) haven’t read my comments.

    The thrust of your response

    The thrust of my comment was that you made up a socially radical movement in Iran. The reason that you did was so that you could bring in the real socially radical movement in the West.

    Buchanan implicitly claims that an “unfree society”

    No he doesn’t. It is exactly what I said. Theocracy is not going to deliver the same package as liberal democracy and that is what he said.

    trying to pretend, as you did, that social radicalism is not relative to the status quo in each society).

    No I didn’t. Social radicalism is relative to time and place. In the West it is massive and has the whip hand. In Iran it is practically non-existent.

    whenever you think you might have a chance to “trip me up”… I have absolutely no objection to honest questioning of my arguments (that’s rather the point of setting them out), but I have gained the impression that yours is not honest …

    I don’t have any desire to trip you up. I would like for you to acknowledge that a socially radical movement in Iran is apparently non-existent and interjecting it does not support your argument.

    Your problem with those issues no doubt stems from your particular loyalties and primary concerns

    I am very concerned about the detrimental effects of our real socially radical movement.

    I have noticed that partisans on the left and the right attribute ignorance to their opponents. Careers have been made devoted to little more than supposedly showing that the white working class in the US votes against its self-interest. If accusations of ignorance seem insufficient, both sides will trot out the idea that their opponents are being “duped” by some other group.

    I have noticed that only the extreme right will accuse one of dishonesty if you don’t agree with what is being asserted.

    The thrust of my comment was that you made up a socially radical movement in Iran. The reason that you did was so that you could bring in the real socially radical movement in the West.

    Whereas in reality there certainly is a socially radical movement in Iran, though it is obviously not as dominant as the one in the US sphere. That’s what the liberalising “reform” movement in Iranian politics represents, precisely.

    It is presently under control, and its defeats in the election of 2009 and in the subsequent US-backed temper tantrum are among the reasons it is still under control.

    That’s why the parallel I drew was apt, unlike Buchanan’s which was pure speculation based upon little or no reliable information about the current unrest.

    If you think that I am in the neocon corner, then you are 1) not that bright, 2) dishonest, or 3) haven’t read my comments.

    Neocon might admittedly be imprecise, since your concerns as they’ve impinged upon my attention here have been less about broader neocon politics and more directly focussed upon protecting Israeli/jewish lobby interests, which are generally at the heart of the neocon movement in practice but don’t exhaust it. I’m not alone in noticing this, you are generally viewed here as an extreme apologist for jewish/Israeli concerns, as numerous commenters have asserted (don’t try to pretend you haven’t noticed).

    No he doesn’t. It is exactly what I said. Theocracy is not going to deliver the same package as liberal democracy and that is what he said.

    Buchanan said explicitly and repeatedly that the Iranian constitutional system cannot, without changing into something else, give the demonstrators what he speculated that they wanted, which was (in his very own words): “the freedom and material goods the young enjoy in the West“, and the whole thrust of his piece was that they would not survive if he did not give them those things (he even drew an explicit parallel with the demise of the Soviet Union).

    In other words, as I originally pointed out, he is arguing that the Iranian system needs to liberalise both socially and economically in order to survive.

    You then asserted: “That’s not what he said. He said that a theocracy can’t deliver the same package as liberal democracy, and he is correct. “, with the implication that it was somehow pointing out an error in my (in fact broadly accurate) description of his view. But in fact “a theocracy can’t deliver the same package as liberal democracy” is common to both Buchanan’s original piece and my presentation of it, so your supposed refutation contained no refuting information or argument.

    Do you understand the issues and your errors yet or do they need further tedious explanation?

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Do you understand the issues and your errors yet or do they need further tedious explanation?

    Captain: What we've got here is failure to communicate.
     
    I noticed that you morphed socially radical left into liberalizing reform movement.

    You didn’t address my complaint of accusations of dishonesty. You didn’t even offer one example.

    I am partial to Israel and the Jews vis-à-vis neo-Nazis. I do not support the lobby/Lobby, all Israeli government policies, neo-conservatism or more endless wars.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. Randal says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    The Islamic Republic of Iran was not established to create a materially prosperous and socially free society, because, in the ayatollah’s theology, such societies, like the USA, are of the devil and corruptive of the people.
     

    For China’s Global Ambitions, ‘Iran Is at the Center of Everything’
    查看简体中文版 查看繁體中文版
    By THOMAS ERDBRINK JULY 25, 2017
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/25/world/middleeast/iran-china-business-ties.html

    For millenniums, Iran has prospered as a trading hub linking East and West. Now, that role is set to expand in coming years as China unspools its “One Belt, One Road” project, which promises more than $1 trillion in infrastructure investment — bridges, rails, ports and energy — in over 60 countries across Europe, Asia and Africa. Iran, historically a crossroads, is strategically at the center of those plans.
     
    --- and that is why US/Anglo/Israel are harrying Iran -- mostly because demon Zionists don't understand the concept of playing fair, trading fair, putting aside militarism.

    Unfortunately, the Leveretts's former weblog, GoingtoTehran, has been erased; several significant essays they published could enlighten Buchanan (there's no hope for iffen & no sense in making the effort). Flynt and Hillary Leverett began arguing about three years ago that while US (& Israel) were busy trying to ruin Iran & the Middle East, China and others were investing in Iran and creating trade relations -- eating US lunch, while US poured trillions down a gun barrel.

    Unfortunately, that merely increases the interest on the part of the war lobbies in furthering the spread of bloody chaos in the region, in order to ensure that China and others don’t profit in the long run from their constructive investments.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. iffen says:
    @anonymous

    If there is an Iranian uprising and it results in a Tiananmen Square slaughter in Tehran, do we really want the U.S., which would not likely intervene to save the patriots, held morally accountable?
     
    AmeriKKKa, or more collectively The West, and morally accountable?!

    Much of the turmoil in the present world, the world I am able to witness, can be traced to White Supremacy. White Supremacy is fundamentally the antithesis of Morally Accountable.

    When will the likes of Pat, the racist Christian conservative hypocrites, stop talking such deceitful nonsense?

    -

    I just read an essay about something related;

    https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/01/05/hey-white-people-weve-got-to-stop-claiming-were-not-racist/


    But, as the following quote implies, there is not much hope that this guy's call will be heeded. Sure, there will be many who will rejoice, and say that is the way it is meant to be, but if you believe in a Higher Being, do you think that is the way He meant it to be?

    [I would like to tell you that such a day approaches when the people who believe themselves to be white renounce this demon religion [i.e. “white supremacism”] and begin to think of themselves as human. But I can see no real promise of such a day.]

    #It’s Okay To Be White

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. iffen says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    The Islamic Republic of Iran was not established to create a materially prosperous and socially free society, because, in the ayatollah’s theology, such societies, like the USA, are of the devil and corruptive of the people.
     

    For China’s Global Ambitions, ‘Iran Is at the Center of Everything’
    查看简体中文版 查看繁體中文版
    By THOMAS ERDBRINK JULY 25, 2017
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/25/world/middleeast/iran-china-business-ties.html

    For millenniums, Iran has prospered as a trading hub linking East and West. Now, that role is set to expand in coming years as China unspools its “One Belt, One Road” project, which promises more than $1 trillion in infrastructure investment — bridges, rails, ports and energy — in over 60 countries across Europe, Asia and Africa. Iran, historically a crossroads, is strategically at the center of those plans.
     
    --- and that is why US/Anglo/Israel are harrying Iran -- mostly because demon Zionists don't understand the concept of playing fair, trading fair, putting aside militarism.

    Unfortunately, the Leveretts's former weblog, GoingtoTehran, has been erased; several significant essays they published could enlighten Buchanan (there's no hope for iffen & no sense in making the effort). Flynt and Hillary Leverett began arguing about three years ago that while US (& Israel) were busy trying to ruin Iran & the Middle East, China and others were investing in Iran and creating trade relations -- eating US lunch, while US poured trillions down a gun barrel.

    demon Zionists

    What other kind is there?

    (there’s no hope for iffen & no sense in making the effort)

    Aww, now you are just deliberately being hurtful.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @anon
    "Social freedom is irreconcilable with Iranian theocracy".

    Freedom is irreconcilable with Islam.

    Freedom is irreconcilable with Islam.

    That is comically ironical, when you consider the hoops through which non-Muslims jump to delude themselves of comprehending their polytheist faiths and deities.

    They say; he is man/woman/animal-like, he begets children, he needs partners, etc., which gives rise to various contrivances like “Harrowing of Hell”, etc. These are the real prisoners… spiritual prisoners.

    http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/db0_onegod.htm

    https://www.instagram.com/p/BTDJ-gkD2HC/?hl=en

    True freedom is when you begin to comprehend Him, and the real purpose of this life… that is, to submit to Him, and only Him, and lead righteous lives… no mental gymnastics required.

    Believe in the following and be free;

    He is One, Infinite & Unique.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. gsjackson says:

    Pat really has gone into the tank for Trump. It’s one valentine after another, this one trying to put lipstick on Trump’s swinish view of Iran, no doubt to neocon applause. What’s his angle — another White House communications director gig when the young babe starts appearing out of her depth?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  57. iffen says:
    @Randal

    The thrust of my comment was that you made up a socially radical movement in Iran. The reason that you did was so that you could bring in the real socially radical movement in the West.
     
    Whereas in reality there certainly is a socially radical movement in Iran, though it is obviously not as dominant as the one in the US sphere. That's what the liberalising "reform" movement in Iranian politics represents, precisely.

    It is presently under control, and its defeats in the election of 2009 and in the subsequent US-backed temper tantrum are among the reasons it is still under control.

    That's why the parallel I drew was apt, unlike Buchanan's which was pure speculation based upon little or no reliable information about the current unrest.

    If you think that I am in the neocon corner, then you are 1) not that bright, 2) dishonest, or 3) haven’t read my comments.
     
    Neocon might admittedly be imprecise, since your concerns as they've impinged upon my attention here have been less about broader neocon politics and more directly focussed upon protecting Israeli/jewish lobby interests, which are generally at the heart of the neocon movement in practice but don't exhaust it. I'm not alone in noticing this, you are generally viewed here as an extreme apologist for jewish/Israeli concerns, as numerous commenters have asserted (don't try to pretend you haven't noticed).


    No he doesn’t. It is exactly what I said. Theocracy is not going to deliver the same package as liberal democracy and that is what he said.
     
    Buchanan said explicitly and repeatedly that the Iranian constitutional system cannot, without changing into something else, give the demonstrators what he speculated that they wanted, which was (in his very own words): "the freedom and material goods the young enjoy in the West", and the whole thrust of his piece was that they would not survive if he did not give them those things (he even drew an explicit parallel with the demise of the Soviet Union).

    In other words, as I originally pointed out, he is arguing that the Iranian system needs to liberalise both socially and economically in order to survive.

    You then asserted: "That’s not what he said. He said that a theocracy can’t deliver the same package as liberal democracy, and he is correct. ", with the implication that it was somehow pointing out an error in my (in fact broadly accurate) description of his view. But in fact "a theocracy can't deliver the same package as liberal democracy" is common to both Buchanan's original piece and my presentation of it, so your supposed refutation contained no refuting information or argument.

    Do you understand the issues and your errors yet or do they need further tedious explanation?

    Do you understand the issues and your errors yet or do they need further tedious explanation?

    Captain: What we’ve got here is failure to communicate.

    I noticed that you morphed socially radical left into liberalizing reform movement.

    You didn’t address my complaint of accusations of dishonesty. You didn’t even offer one example.

    I am partial to Israel and the Jews vis-à-vis neo-Nazis. I do not support the lobby/Lobby, all Israeli government policies, neo-conservatism or more endless wars.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    I noticed that you morphed socially radical left into liberalizing reform movement.
     
    No morphing required. The latter is merely the thin edge of the wedge, of which the former is the fat end.

    Haven't you paid attention to how things developed in the US sphere over the past century and a half or so?

    You didn’t address my complaint of accusations of dishonesty. You didn’t even offer one example.
     
    If you want examples, you can trawl through the back catalogue of examples I've pointed out to you.

    In general these are cases where there are two alternative explanations: honest misunderstanding or dishonest pretence. Only you can know for certain what your own motivation is, and your readers must make the best assessment they can based upon tone, context and experience. Recently, I have chosen not to give you the benefit of the doubt any more.

    But it's not as though it matters, since my opinion of you is of no importance unless you choose to make it so. It's not as though I'm in a position to ban you here, or censure or disadvantage you in any way (not that I would even if I were, mind - I do not aspire to suppress the expression of views with which I disagree, as you do).

    I am partial to Israel and the Jews vis-à-vis neo-Nazis. I do not support the lobby/Lobby, all Israeli government policies, neo-conservatism or more endless wars.
     
    And time and again you come down on the side that suits Israeli/jewish lobby concerns (eg advocating suppressing the expression of the views of "nazis and "antisemites", supporting the notion that these apparently already subsiding disorders in Iran are reflections of existential defects in the Iranian constitutional settlement and insisting Iran must "reform").

    I don't say that's the entirety of your political views, because I don't know what those are, just that it is usually when you are expressing such views that I encounter you.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. Randal says:
    @iffen
    Do you understand the issues and your errors yet or do they need further tedious explanation?

    Captain: What we've got here is failure to communicate.
     
    I noticed that you morphed socially radical left into liberalizing reform movement.

    You didn’t address my complaint of accusations of dishonesty. You didn’t even offer one example.

    I am partial to Israel and the Jews vis-à-vis neo-Nazis. I do not support the lobby/Lobby, all Israeli government policies, neo-conservatism or more endless wars.

    I noticed that you morphed socially radical left into liberalizing reform movement.

    No morphing required. The latter is merely the thin edge of the wedge, of which the former is the fat end.

    Haven’t you paid attention to how things developed in the US sphere over the past century and a half or so?

    You didn’t address my complaint of accusations of dishonesty. You didn’t even offer one example.

    If you want examples, you can trawl through the back catalogue of examples I’ve pointed out to you.

    In general these are cases where there are two alternative explanations: honest misunderstanding or dishonest pretence. Only you can know for certain what your own motivation is, and your readers must make the best assessment they can based upon tone, context and experience. Recently, I have chosen not to give you the benefit of the doubt any more.

    But it’s not as though it matters, since my opinion of you is of no importance unless you choose to make it so. It’s not as though I’m in a position to ban you here, or censure or disadvantage you in any way (not that I would even if I were, mind – I do not aspire to suppress the expression of views with which I disagree, as you do).

    I am partial to Israel and the Jews vis-à-vis neo-Nazis. I do not support the lobby/Lobby, all Israeli government policies, neo-conservatism or more endless wars.

    And time and again you come down on the side that suits Israeli/jewish lobby concerns (eg advocating suppressing the expression of the views of “nazis and “antisemites”, supporting the notion that these apparently already subsiding disorders in Iran are reflections of existential defects in the Iranian constitutional settlement and insisting Iran must “reform”).

    I don’t say that’s the entirety of your political views, because I don’t know what those are, just that it is usually when you are expressing such views that I encounter you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    But it’s not as though it matters, since my opinion of you is of no importance unless you choose to make it so.

    True, but even in an anonymous exchange of opinions I like to think that I present my views in a forthright manner.

    Of greater interest to me is how we come to those opinions that we express. For example, when I see someone, such as yourself, express opinion A and I am very much in agreement with opinion A, but then you express opinion B on a related or intertwined subject and I don’t see any support for opinion B, I am then interested in gaining an understanding for the difference.

    , @peterAUS
    Hey, Randal....have you read this Michael Wolff's book about Trump?
    I've skimmed through it......

    God Save the Queen!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. Virgile says:

    The Islamic revolution was a reaction to the Western abusive exploitation of Iran. The USA had never acknowledge that by torpedoing an emerging Iranian democracy in 1953, it has created an break that could not be easily mended. Later the USA has been punished by the humiliating withholding of the US hostages. As Iran could not forget the 1953 US coup that brought back the hated Shah, the USA has not forgotten the hostage crisis.
    The two countries were set for decades of antagonism and provocations.
    Despite the overwhelming power of the USA, it is the fervor of the Islamic republic that held the country united despite the 8 years war against Saddam Hossein that the West thought would break the revolution and bring back the Shah’s son.
    As such the Islamic Republic has been a success.
    Now the fervor has died down, The new generation does not know how the country was under the cruel Shah regime with its arbitrary detention and murders. It compares itself to the West and its glitters ignoring the social problems that the USA is facing with the blacks and poverty.
    Social media is good to criticize the Islamic Republic for its prude and religious obsession, but none is able to propose another system.
    Ideally Iran needs an Ataturk who will propose and enforce a nin religious governing system but where is a man like this in the 21h century and how can a system be enforced in the global world where any internal protest ends up at the UN security council?
    There will be no revolution and no new system in Iran for decades to come, just few adjustments over the years.
    The Iranians know that and their protests are warnings that the Islamic republic needs these adjustments now.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  60. @RadicalCenter
    Didn't Pat conclude by writing that the US should NOT go to war against Iran? How is that imperialist? How is he imperialist in spending decades opposing US interference in numerous countries and conflicts?

    Pat writes that the US should not go to war against Iran not because he’s against the war itself but because he expects Iran to fall anyway without the need for a war. A wiser and more honourable man would determine that the Iranians themselves should be the ones to decide how they are governed and by whom. Such a man might even use his standing and influence to argue that the money and manpower being squandered by meddling in the ME could be put to better use in rebuilding America.

    Read More
    • Agree: Zumbuddi
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. @nebulafox
    With the Trump White House, who actually said what requires more effort to decipher than the policies themselves, with all the mutually contradicting narratives being pushed out.

    >Rex Tillerson: Our policy towards Iran is to push back on this hegemony,

    Iranian hegemony in the Levant is not directly against US interests. In some ways, it works out quite nicely for us. And again: if the Shah were still in power, he'd be doing the exact same thing in pursing regional hegemony and atomic weapons.

    >contain their ability to develop nuclear weapons

    That program that started under the Shah? And how do they propose to do that, short of pre-emptive war? We've given Iran every incentive to develop nuclear weapons over the past couple of decades, and that won't change regardless of who is in charge in Tehran.

    >and to work toward support of those elements inside of Iran that would lead to a peaceful transition of that government.

    Those elements will still likely be Persian nationalists who are likely not interested in whatever fantastic vision the GOP has in mind.

    >Why is it any of our business what type of regime a country has?

    Expecting logic from neocons is pointless.

    ” in pursing (sic) regional hegemony and atomic weapons.”

    Nonsense! They simply seek the means (defences) necessary to maintain their independence and sovereignty and given the recent history of outside meddling in the region it is hardly paranoid behaviour to do so.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. iffen says:
    @Randal

    I noticed that you morphed socially radical left into liberalizing reform movement.
     
    No morphing required. The latter is merely the thin edge of the wedge, of which the former is the fat end.

    Haven't you paid attention to how things developed in the US sphere over the past century and a half or so?

    You didn’t address my complaint of accusations of dishonesty. You didn’t even offer one example.
     
    If you want examples, you can trawl through the back catalogue of examples I've pointed out to you.

    In general these are cases where there are two alternative explanations: honest misunderstanding or dishonest pretence. Only you can know for certain what your own motivation is, and your readers must make the best assessment they can based upon tone, context and experience. Recently, I have chosen not to give you the benefit of the doubt any more.

    But it's not as though it matters, since my opinion of you is of no importance unless you choose to make it so. It's not as though I'm in a position to ban you here, or censure or disadvantage you in any way (not that I would even if I were, mind - I do not aspire to suppress the expression of views with which I disagree, as you do).

    I am partial to Israel and the Jews vis-à-vis neo-Nazis. I do not support the lobby/Lobby, all Israeli government policies, neo-conservatism or more endless wars.
     
    And time and again you come down on the side that suits Israeli/jewish lobby concerns (eg advocating suppressing the expression of the views of "nazis and "antisemites", supporting the notion that these apparently already subsiding disorders in Iran are reflections of existential defects in the Iranian constitutional settlement and insisting Iran must "reform").

    I don't say that's the entirety of your political views, because I don't know what those are, just that it is usually when you are expressing such views that I encounter you.

    But it’s not as though it matters, since my opinion of you is of no importance unless you choose to make it so.

    True, but even in an anonymous exchange of opinions I like to think that I present my views in a forthright manner.

    Of greater interest to me is how we come to those opinions that we express. For example, when I see someone, such as yourself, express opinion A and I am very much in agreement with opinion A, but then you express opinion B on a related or intertwined subject and I don’t see any support for opinion B, I am then interested in gaining an understanding for the difference.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. We (Americans and British) not only “urge[d] the Iranians to rise up and overthrow their regime”, we faked a popular revolution to that effect in 1953. We have been reaping the whirlwind ever since.

    What was not achieved by a puppet government, or by isolation and sanctions, can be effected by Coca Cola and McDonalds. Let us normalise relations with Iran, and welcome them to the world of global commerce. The Iranian public will be grateful: remember that the most popular TV program in Iran was Baywatch – until the Ayatollahs banned it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    Those Baywatch-watching Iranians are already in the US, they hopped on over after the fall of the Shah. It's not a good idea to text anytime while walking in Beverly Hill lest you trip over a couple of them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. peterAUS says:
    @Randal

    I noticed that you morphed socially radical left into liberalizing reform movement.
     
    No morphing required. The latter is merely the thin edge of the wedge, of which the former is the fat end.

    Haven't you paid attention to how things developed in the US sphere over the past century and a half or so?

    You didn’t address my complaint of accusations of dishonesty. You didn’t even offer one example.
     
    If you want examples, you can trawl through the back catalogue of examples I've pointed out to you.

    In general these are cases where there are two alternative explanations: honest misunderstanding or dishonest pretence. Only you can know for certain what your own motivation is, and your readers must make the best assessment they can based upon tone, context and experience. Recently, I have chosen not to give you the benefit of the doubt any more.

    But it's not as though it matters, since my opinion of you is of no importance unless you choose to make it so. It's not as though I'm in a position to ban you here, or censure or disadvantage you in any way (not that I would even if I were, mind - I do not aspire to suppress the expression of views with which I disagree, as you do).

    I am partial to Israel and the Jews vis-à-vis neo-Nazis. I do not support the lobby/Lobby, all Israeli government policies, neo-conservatism or more endless wars.
     
    And time and again you come down on the side that suits Israeli/jewish lobby concerns (eg advocating suppressing the expression of the views of "nazis and "antisemites", supporting the notion that these apparently already subsiding disorders in Iran are reflections of existential defects in the Iranian constitutional settlement and insisting Iran must "reform").

    I don't say that's the entirety of your political views, because I don't know what those are, just that it is usually when you are expressing such views that I encounter you.

    Hey, Randal….have you read this Michael Wolff’s book about Trump?
    I’ve skimmed through it……

    God Save the Queen!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    Not yet, though I recognise it's a book I ought to read. But it's rather a depressing prospect for me, nonetheless. Mind you as is often the case I've seen countless extracts and descriptions of it already.

    What did you make of the book?

    My impression is that it's nothing particular surprising and some of the extracts I've seen tend to humanise the President for me, and reassure me that my original judgement of him - that for all his flaws he's the most genuinely American president that country has had for decades - was pretty much on target. It seems even Trump recognises this on some level:

    In a passage that perhaps points to Trump’s underrated understanding of his unique political appeal, Wolff quotes an unnamed “foreign model” asking him: “What is this ‘white trash’?”

    “They’re people just like me,” says Trump, “only they’re poor.”
     
    "https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/05/trump-book-highlights-michael-wolff-fire-fury"

    What I've seen has also supported my impression that he's in the process of being captured by lobby advisers as Bush II was, and that some of the seemingly stupid decisions (such as the Jerusalem nonsense) he's made reflect that. In the Unz context, I thought this was interesting (from the same Guardian summary):

    "Bannon is ranged against Kushner and Ivanka and in the words of Richard Nixon’s adviser Henry Kissinger: “It is a war between the Jews and the non-Jews.”"

    Kissinger clearly has his own agenda, but the problem of excessive jewish and Israel lobby influence is certainly one of the most important of those facing America and it's interesting to see this reflected so obviously in the personalities around the President.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. Pat’s piece is a downer for all Likudniks (and Neocons). Too bad. We should be able to function with crypto diplomatic efforts involving Iran in spite of their support for terrorism. That means we have to live up to our treaties. And, Israelis have to be told that their 100 nukes pointed at Tehran will have to be enough of a deterrent. We should not support their war, with the Saudis silently cheering them/us on. Trump can’t be allowed to renege on the nuke deal (as per campaign promise).
    I don’t expect we will ever have an exchange of ambassadors with Iran in my lifetime. But being able to talk to them is worthwhile. It should not be just tossed away because that’s what Israel wants.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    Could you please be more specific on your claim that Iran has supported terrorism? Examples with links should be the minimal after making such a bold assertion. I'm not aware of anything of the sort unless you're actually referring to "terrorism", the sort that Gaddafi was accused of. Thanks.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. @James N. Kennett
    We (Americans and British) not only "urge[d] the Iranians to rise up and overthrow their regime", we faked a popular revolution to that effect in 1953. We have been reaping the whirlwind ever since.

    What was not achieved by a puppet government, or by isolation and sanctions, can be effected by Coca Cola and McDonalds. Let us normalise relations with Iran, and welcome them to the world of global commerce. The Iranian public will be grateful: remember that the most popular TV program in Iran was Baywatch - until the Ayatollahs banned it.

    Those Baywatch-watching Iranians are already in the US, they hopped on over after the fall of the Shah. It’s not a good idea to text anytime while walking in Beverly Hill lest you trip over a couple of them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. @Mark James
    Pat's piece is a downer for all Likudniks (and Neocons). Too bad. We should be able to function with crypto diplomatic efforts involving Iran in spite of their support for terrorism. That means we have to live up to our treaties. And, Israelis have to be told that their 100 nukes pointed at Tehran will have to be enough of a deterrent. We should not support their war, with the Saudis silently cheering them/us on. Trump can't be allowed to renege on the nuke deal (as per campaign promise).
    I don't expect we will ever have an exchange of ambassadors with Iran in my lifetime. But being able to talk to them is worthwhile. It should not be just tossed away because that's what Israel wants.

    Could you please be more specific on your claim that Iran has supported terrorism? Examples with links should be the minimal after making such a bold assertion. I’m not aware of anything of the sort unless you’re actually referring to “terrorism”, the sort that Gaddafi was accused of. Thanks.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. @Randal
    A lot of typically American wishful thinking on Iran here from Buchanan, who is not by any means immune merely because he is not an interventionist from the general American delusion and irrationality on Iran.

    There's no reason to equate these latest demonstrations in Iran with the popular dissatisfaction in the US that gave rise to the anti-establishment vote for Trump, since almost nothing is similar in the social, economic and political situations of the two countries. It's a simple failure of imagination on Buchanan's part that draws a simplistic equation between the foreign and the familiar.

    As for the supposedly direly portentous nature of these apparently relatively small and quickly suppressed riots for the entire Iranian constitutional settlement, that seems to be wholly wishful thinking on Buchanan's part, based upon the usual American fantasy that no society that does not kowtow to American ideas about liberal democracy can possibly survive for long.

    For the moment, the reasonable assumption seems to be that this brief flash of disorder was less significant for the long term, albeit more intense, than, say, the "Black Lives Matter" and antifa thuggery that is now endemic to US society, despite the best efforts at active interference to promote it by the US and its regional collaborators.


    In 2009, the uprising of millions in Tehran was driven by middle-class rage over an election stolen by the populist President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. ”
     
    Buchanan ought to know better, here. If we are to try to draw a parallel between Iranian and American politics as Buchanan does here, then a better place to begin is to observe that the socially radical left are universally very bad losers, and profoundly hypocritical and dishonest about the excuses they use to try to get their own way in the face of defeat. The 2009 protests were more aptly viewed as an equivalent of the anti-Trump temper tantrums in the US this year, inflamed by well financed dirty tricks from the US.

    In general, the persistent effectiveness within the US of all the Democrat and Russophobe nonsense about Russian "interference" can probably legitimately be seen as the national equivalent of a guilty conscience at work, given that interfering in other countries' political affairs has been the very essence of American behaviour.


    The Iranian protests suggest that the Islamic Revolution, after 40 years, is failing the rising generation.
     
    Funny how every few years Iran, like pretty much every other country in the world, has a bout of political unrest and in Iran's case it's always evidence that "the Islamic revolution is failing". If it wasn't in 1999 and it wasn't in 2009, I think the odds are it won't prove to have been so in 2017/18. I think the better conclusion is that American pundits are full of shit about Iran.

    Iran has plenty of problems, in the economic sphere mostly because, as a result of its refusal to kowtow to the US and to Israel, it has faced determined and continuous economic warfare from the US, aided and abetted by its hugely "influential" regional rivals Israel and Saudi Arabia. Whether it will ultimately overcome those problems and continue to survive long term remains to be seen, but there's no reason to believe the usual American bullshit about the inevitable triumph of social radicalism meaning Iran can only save itself by making itself like America.

    Bravo, well said, Randall.

    I was surprised by Buchanan’s take on Iran especially given that without Iran the Christians of Syria would have gone the way of the Christians of Iraq by now, this is, exterminated.

    One would have thought a Catholic could have noted that?

    As for the economic problems, Iran is a nation under siege. May God give them strength to persist in the face of ongoing Judeo-American evil.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    Cheers Pat. As you say, Iran is a nation under siege and that context should never be forgotten in any assessment we make of its performance, or its actions.

    In defence of Buchanan, as I noted in the first place I think his error here is very characteristically American. Americans are often irrational on the topic of Iran in particular (and similarly on Hezbollah) for reasons that should be obvious - history and the Israel lobby media dominance. At least he is arguing for not interfering.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. Randal says:
    @peterAUS
    Hey, Randal....have you read this Michael Wolff's book about Trump?
    I've skimmed through it......

    God Save the Queen!

    Not yet, though I recognise it’s a book I ought to read. But it’s rather a depressing prospect for me, nonetheless. Mind you as is often the case I’ve seen countless extracts and descriptions of it already.

    What did you make of the book?

    My impression is that it’s nothing particular surprising and some of the extracts I’ve seen tend to humanise the President for me, and reassure me that my original judgement of him – that for all his flaws he’s the most genuinely American president that country has had for decades – was pretty much on target. It seems even Trump recognises this on some level:

    In a passage that perhaps points to Trump’s underrated understanding of his unique political appeal, Wolff quotes an unnamed “foreign model” asking him: “What is this ‘white trash’?”

    “They’re people just like me,” says Trump, “only they’re poor.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/05/trump-book-highlights-michael-wolff-fire-fury

    What I’ve seen has also supported my impression that he’s in the process of being captured by lobby advisers as Bush II was, and that some of the seemingly stupid decisions (such as the Jerusalem nonsense) he’s made reflect that. In the Unz context, I thought this was interesting (from the same Guardian summary):

    Bannon is ranged against Kushner and Ivanka and in the words of Richard Nixon’s adviser Henry Kissinger: “It is a war between the Jews and the non-Jews.”

    Kissinger clearly has his own agenda, but the problem of excessive jewish and Israel lobby influence is certainly one of the most important of those facing America and it’s interesting to see this reflected so obviously in the personalities around the President.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    What did you make of the book?
     
    Shocking.

    I am still reeling from all that. Bewildered probably describes it.

    Now it all makes sense actually. In a terrible way.

    There is nothing good coming out of it, for anyone.
    There are several elements of all that of utmost importance and, as we (don't) see it, nobody wants to even acknowledge that on "alt-right" side.
    Silence........everywhere.

    Not..........good.

    This........thing....wouldn't mean much in some 3rd/4th world country.
    But, the hyper-power..........simply unbelievable.

    There is, perhaps, one good thing that could come out of this.
    This government is practically non-functional and will stay that way for some time.
    Now, because The Big Government is a problem, well, non-functioning Big Government is maybe second best thing to Small Government.

    My concern is that the non-functional Big Government can, in that state, make a terrible mistake.

    I was focused, mostly, on foreign policy, or, really, on "military issues".
    Reading how that strike on Syria was originated and managed made me sick.

    THAT methodology in dealing with all these potential crises around, North Korea in particular........is surreal.
    Just surreal.

    Not............good......
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. Randal says:
    @Pat Hannagan
    Bravo, well said, Randall.

    I was surprised by Buchanan's take on Iran especially given that without Iran the Christians of Syria would have gone the way of the Christians of Iraq by now, this is, exterminated.

    One would have thought a Catholic could have noted that?

    As for the economic problems, Iran is a nation under siege. May God give them strength to persist in the face of ongoing Judeo-American evil.

    Cheers Pat. As you say, Iran is a nation under siege and that context should never be forgotten in any assessment we make of its performance, or its actions.

    In defence of Buchanan, as I noted in the first place I think his error here is very characteristically American. Americans are often irrational on the topic of Iran in particular (and similarly on Hezbollah) for reasons that should be obvious – history and the Israel lobby media dominance. At least he is arguing for not interfering.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. peterAUS says:
    @Randal
    Not yet, though I recognise it's a book I ought to read. But it's rather a depressing prospect for me, nonetheless. Mind you as is often the case I've seen countless extracts and descriptions of it already.

    What did you make of the book?

    My impression is that it's nothing particular surprising and some of the extracts I've seen tend to humanise the President for me, and reassure me that my original judgement of him - that for all his flaws he's the most genuinely American president that country has had for decades - was pretty much on target. It seems even Trump recognises this on some level:

    In a passage that perhaps points to Trump’s underrated understanding of his unique political appeal, Wolff quotes an unnamed “foreign model” asking him: “What is this ‘white trash’?”

    “They’re people just like me,” says Trump, “only they’re poor.”
     
    "https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/05/trump-book-highlights-michael-wolff-fire-fury"

    What I've seen has also supported my impression that he's in the process of being captured by lobby advisers as Bush II was, and that some of the seemingly stupid decisions (such as the Jerusalem nonsense) he's made reflect that. In the Unz context, I thought this was interesting (from the same Guardian summary):

    "Bannon is ranged against Kushner and Ivanka and in the words of Richard Nixon’s adviser Henry Kissinger: “It is a war between the Jews and the non-Jews.”"

    Kissinger clearly has his own agenda, but the problem of excessive jewish and Israel lobby influence is certainly one of the most important of those facing America and it's interesting to see this reflected so obviously in the personalities around the President.

    What did you make of the book?

    Shocking.

    I am still reeling from all that. Bewildered probably describes it.

    Now it all makes sense actually. In a terrible way.

    There is nothing good coming out of it, for anyone.
    There are several elements of all that of utmost importance and, as we (don’t) see it, nobody wants to even acknowledge that on “alt-right” side.
    Silence……..everywhere.

    Not……….good.

    This……..thing….wouldn’t mean much in some 3rd/4th world country.
    But, the hyper-power……….simply unbelievable.

    There is, perhaps, one good thing that could come out of this.
    This government is practically non-functional and will stay that way for some time.
    Now, because The Big Government is a problem, well, non-functioning Big Government is maybe second best thing to Small Government.

    My concern is that the non-functional Big Government can, in that state, make a terrible mistake.

    I was focused, mostly, on foreign policy, or, really, on “military issues”.
    Reading how that strike on Syria was originated and managed made me sick.

    THAT methodology in dealing with all these potential crises around, North Korea in particular……..is surreal.
    Just surreal.

    Not…………good……

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    Why such a big impact on you? What aspects of it in particular have you found so shocking?

    I get the impression you perhaps expected more competence and organisation, but I really don't know why. In any case, I see no reason to take such stuff from journos (as far as the personal criticisms of Trump and his supposed mental competence are concerned) any more seriously than the similar kinds of stuff that were written about Reagan.

    The system mostly adjusts for the human frailties of the leader, I think, for both good and ill.

    Reading how that strike on Syria was originated and managed made me sick.
     
    That interests me, since I haven't seen any extracts about that process.

    Is it any worse than what I always assumed it to have been - just a shambolic and ad hoc piece of murderous grandstanding?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. Randal says:
    @peterAUS

    What did you make of the book?
     
    Shocking.

    I am still reeling from all that. Bewildered probably describes it.

    Now it all makes sense actually. In a terrible way.

    There is nothing good coming out of it, for anyone.
    There are several elements of all that of utmost importance and, as we (don't) see it, nobody wants to even acknowledge that on "alt-right" side.
    Silence........everywhere.

    Not..........good.

    This........thing....wouldn't mean much in some 3rd/4th world country.
    But, the hyper-power..........simply unbelievable.

    There is, perhaps, one good thing that could come out of this.
    This government is practically non-functional and will stay that way for some time.
    Now, because The Big Government is a problem, well, non-functioning Big Government is maybe second best thing to Small Government.

    My concern is that the non-functional Big Government can, in that state, make a terrible mistake.

    I was focused, mostly, on foreign policy, or, really, on "military issues".
    Reading how that strike on Syria was originated and managed made me sick.

    THAT methodology in dealing with all these potential crises around, North Korea in particular........is surreal.
    Just surreal.

    Not............good......

    Why such a big impact on you? What aspects of it in particular have you found so shocking?

    I get the impression you perhaps expected more competence and organisation, but I really don’t know why. In any case, I see no reason to take such stuff from journos (as far as the personal criticisms of Trump and his supposed mental competence are concerned) any more seriously than the similar kinds of stuff that were written about Reagan.

    The system mostly adjusts for the human frailties of the leader, I think, for both good and ill.

    Reading how that strike on Syria was originated and managed made me sick.

    That interests me, since I haven’t seen any extracts about that process.

    Is it any worse than what I always assumed it to have been – just a shambolic and ad hoc piece of murderous grandstanding?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. peterAUS says:

    I get the impression you perhaps expected more competence and organisation

    FUCK yeah….!

    If third of that is true it’s shocking.
    I do know something about competence and organization of serious outfits.
    Don’t know what is more serious on this planet then White House, and I had more organization and competence in some ad-hock outfits filled by amateurs and civilians.

    …I really don’t know why.

    Thermonuclear MIRVs on top of ICBMs?!?

    I got an impression that the shittiest unit I was in charge of had, apparently, more control of firing a machine-gun than the White House is on firing a NUKE.

    That is simply not on.

    Forget Reagan. There was a clear cut line of CiC there, no doubt about it.
    I guess we both know how he handled Falkands war.
    Which brings back exactly to this with Syria. I just can’t read that shit again. It was…..like those courts in Medieval Europe. A dumb King’s daughter, an emotional King, and bewildered Knights able to manage that…….whim…..without getting into serious trouble.

    You know what? A company commander found having his command organized that way and operating that way would be relieved of his duty and never given a command of men and material anymore.
    This is the Office of the President of USA.

    I don’t care much about that mess domestically, even foreign policy.
    All I care is Commander in Chief there. Literally, the most powerful man on the planet. We want him reasonable and, the most important, the system around him perfect.

    Man….there is NO SYSTEM there!!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    OK, well I can't say I'm shocked at the idea that the political operation at the top is shambolic, given what I've heard about the ways some of the big decisions in our time were enacted (Blair on Iraq, Cameron on Syria etc), nor that I'm much surprised about the Syria attack as you describe it, which is pretty much how I always suspected it happened. In my experience there's often less than is assumed, in top level strategic decision making. Analysts often make up nonsense after the fact to try to build an explanation that simply isn't needed, like all the speculation about Trump "sending a message" as part of some multi-dimensional strategic chess game with the Russians, with that murder of a few Syrian conscripts in a country his own country was supposedly at peace with.

    But I am rather shocked that you are so shocked by the sheer extent of it as you see it portrayed in this book, because that makes me concerned that maybe I'm underestimating the scale of the problem. Maybe I'll read the book sooner rather than later after all.....


    You know what? A company commander found having his command organized that way and operating that way would be relieved of his duty and never given a command of men and material anymore.
    This is the Office of the President of USA.
     
    And there's nobody above them to relieve them of command.

    Well, Congress might have been able to do it if the Democrats hadn't already cried wolf far too many times.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. Randal says:
    @peterAUS

    I get the impression you perhaps expected more competence and organisation...
     
    FUCK yeah....!

    If third of that is true it's shocking.
    I do know something about competence and organization of serious outfits.
    Don't know what is more serious on this planet then White House, and I had more organization and competence in some ad-hock outfits filled by amateurs and civilians.


    ...I really don’t know why.
     
    Thermonuclear MIRVs on top of ICBMs?!?

    I got an impression that the shittiest unit I was in charge of had, apparently, more control of firing a machine-gun than the White House is on firing a NUKE.

    That is simply not on.

    Forget Reagan. There was a clear cut line of CiC there, no doubt about it.
    I guess we both know how he handled Falkands war.
    Which brings back exactly to this with Syria. I just can't read that shit again. It was.....like those courts in Medieval Europe. A dumb King's daughter, an emotional King, and bewildered Knights able to manage that.......whim.....without getting into serious trouble.

    You know what? A company commander found having his command organized that way and operating that way would be relieved of his duty and never given a command of men and material anymore.
    This is the Office of the President of USA.

    I don't care much about that mess domestically, even foreign policy.
    All I care is Commander in Chief there. Literally, the most powerful man on the planet. We want him reasonable and, the most important, the system around him perfect.

    Man....there is NO SYSTEM there!!

    OK, well I can’t say I’m shocked at the idea that the political operation at the top is shambolic, given what I’ve heard about the ways some of the big decisions in our time were enacted (Blair on Iraq, Cameron on Syria etc), nor that I’m much surprised about the Syria attack as you describe it, which is pretty much how I always suspected it happened. In my experience there’s often less than is assumed, in top level strategic decision making. Analysts often make up nonsense after the fact to try to build an explanation that simply isn’t needed, like all the speculation about Trump “sending a message” as part of some multi-dimensional strategic chess game with the Russians, with that murder of a few Syrian conscripts in a country his own country was supposedly at peace with.

    But I am rather shocked that you are so shocked by the sheer extent of it as you see it portrayed in this book, because that makes me concerned that maybe I’m underestimating the scale of the problem. Maybe I’ll read the book sooner rather than later after all…..

    You know what? A company commander found having his command organized that way and operating that way would be relieved of his duty and never given a command of men and material anymore.
    This is the Office of the President of USA.

    And there’s nobody above them to relieve them of command.

    Well, Congress might have been able to do it if the Democrats hadn’t already cried wolf far too many times.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    But I am rather shocked that you are so shocked by the sheer extent of it as you see it portrayed in this book, because that makes me concerned that maybe I’m underestimating the scale of the problem. Maybe I’ll read the book sooner rather than later after all….
     
    I really suggest that.

    I can come across as simpleton, and, actually I am, when high level politics, economics and similar fine intellectual endevours are concerned.

    But I do know about organizations and chain of command and control when weapons are concerned.
    There are things you can be disorganized and chaotic about. But weapons are not. Or, when it happens something bad will result from it. All...the....time....

    That is why military has strict processes, procedures, manning and qualifications rules, checks and balances when weapons, let alone weapons systems are concerned. I spent decades in that environment.
    You know, after a while, one develops a feeling for a unit/military organization to such extent that in 5 minutes tops he can assess a unit. Five minutes.
    Show me any platoon of this world 5 minutes on live fire exercise and I'll tell you exactly how good they are. Disclaimer: will have to be able to see targets and hits/misses there.

    And then I read how White House works.............................................

    My point is that when I read how that launch was....done.....I just felt terrible. It's not there were bad rules, I could handle that; bad rules can be improved. There were no rules......methodology was pulled out of their asses.
    I am not sure I am explaining myself well here because I it's simply...mind boggling.

    You do NOT decide to launch cruise missiles at the area controlled by another nuclear superpower like that. EVER.

    Of course the writer has agenda, it's seen from a mile. Who cares about personalities, egos, backstabbing, I wouldn't care if they had daily sex parties in Oval Office.

    But, the book gives an impression that the Administration has been chaotic and disorganized.
    My point is the Administration can be anything else but disorganized.

    This is the gist:
    Trump didn't expect to win.
    When he won his team was not ready to take over.
    I can get that. BUT, what transpires is that the USA did NOT have a mechanism in place to ensure that the new administration shall be organizd no matter what.
    Because this is the first time a total outsider walked in. There was no provision for such event.
    THAT is the point I got from the book.

    It's almost as the new President has to bring with him all senior Civil Service personnel. That's apparently how Americans work.....
    So far everybody walking there was ready for that and knew how to do that.
    This team wasn't ready and apparently doesn't know how to do that.

    And now we are where you say:


    And there’s nobody above them to relieve them of command.

    Well, Congress might have been able to do it if the Democrats hadn’t already cried wolf far too many times.
     

    SOMEBODY has to get all that sorted out.
    And soon.

    Just who?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. L.K says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    Just as with the other two, ideological influences remain-in particular in the fanatical anti-Semitism of the regime in Tehran, an extremely sad break from traditional Persian tolerance and even warmness for Jews, in stark contrast to the Arab World
     
    Really, it's Jews who have to get over finding anti semitism under every pebble and grain of sand.

    My Iranian friends don't hate Jews, and Jews who live in Iran and consider themselves Iranians who happen to be Jewish don't want to live anywhere else -- not Israel, not Tehrangeles; they are Iranian.

    It's fair to tag Iranian leadership as anti-zionist: that's just basic morality and common sense: who could possibly be in favor of a government/political movement that brutalizes people it has first dispossessed, and is attempting to undermine and overthrow Iran's economy and government?

    Jews and people who write about ME affairs really need a long soak in brain bleach, and to stop jumping so quickly to the antisemite neural pathway and, instead, examine the context, situation, and cause-and-effect relationships more intelligently.

    Nebulafox is another Zionist/ IsraHell supporter.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. Paddy of course is dead wrong on this.

    It was just one more Soros sourced “color revolution”

    Read More
    • Replies: @gsjackson
    Agreed. Scroll down to the Eric Margolis column to get the right take.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. peterAUS says:
    @Randal
    OK, well I can't say I'm shocked at the idea that the political operation at the top is shambolic, given what I've heard about the ways some of the big decisions in our time were enacted (Blair on Iraq, Cameron on Syria etc), nor that I'm much surprised about the Syria attack as you describe it, which is pretty much how I always suspected it happened. In my experience there's often less than is assumed, in top level strategic decision making. Analysts often make up nonsense after the fact to try to build an explanation that simply isn't needed, like all the speculation about Trump "sending a message" as part of some multi-dimensional strategic chess game with the Russians, with that murder of a few Syrian conscripts in a country his own country was supposedly at peace with.

    But I am rather shocked that you are so shocked by the sheer extent of it as you see it portrayed in this book, because that makes me concerned that maybe I'm underestimating the scale of the problem. Maybe I'll read the book sooner rather than later after all.....


    You know what? A company commander found having his command organized that way and operating that way would be relieved of his duty and never given a command of men and material anymore.
    This is the Office of the President of USA.
     
    And there's nobody above them to relieve them of command.

    Well, Congress might have been able to do it if the Democrats hadn't already cried wolf far too many times.

    But I am rather shocked that you are so shocked by the sheer extent of it as you see it portrayed in this book, because that makes me concerned that maybe I’m underestimating the scale of the problem. Maybe I’ll read the book sooner rather than later after all….

    I really suggest that.

    I can come across as simpleton, and, actually I am, when high level politics, economics and similar fine intellectual endevours are concerned.

    But I do know about organizations and chain of command and control when weapons are concerned.
    There are things you can be disorganized and chaotic about. But weapons are not. Or, when it happens something bad will result from it. All…the….time….

    That is why military has strict processes, procedures, manning and qualifications rules, checks and balances when weapons, let alone weapons systems are concerned. I spent decades in that environment.
    You know, after a while, one develops a feeling for a unit/military organization to such extent that in 5 minutes tops he can assess a unit. Five minutes.
    Show me any platoon of this world 5 minutes on live fire exercise and I’ll tell you exactly how good they are. Disclaimer: will have to be able to see targets and hits/misses there.

    And then I read how White House works………………………………………

    My point is that when I read how that launch was….done…..I just felt terrible. It’s not there were bad rules, I could handle that; bad rules can be improved. There were no rules……methodology was pulled out of their asses.
    I am not sure I am explaining myself well here because I it’s simply…mind boggling.

    You do NOT decide to launch cruise missiles at the area controlled by another nuclear superpower like that. EVER.

    Of course the writer has agenda, it’s seen from a mile. Who cares about personalities, egos, backstabbing, I wouldn’t care if they had daily sex parties in Oval Office.

    But, the book gives an impression that the Administration has been chaotic and disorganized.
    My point is the Administration can be anything else but disorganized.

    This is the gist:
    Trump didn’t expect to win.
    When he won his team was not ready to take over.
    I can get that. BUT, what transpires is that the USA did NOT have a mechanism in place to ensure that the new administration shall be organizd no matter what.
    Because this is the first time a total outsider walked in. There was no provision for such event.
    THAT is the point I got from the book.

    It’s almost as the new President has to bring with him all senior Civil Service personnel. That’s apparently how Americans work…..
    So far everybody walking there was ready for that and knew how to do that.
    This team wasn’t ready and apparently doesn’t know how to do that.

    And now we are where you say:

    And there’s nobody above them to relieve them of command.

    Well, Congress might have been able to do it if the Democrats hadn’t already cried wolf far too many times.

    SOMEBODY has to get all that sorted out.
    And soon.

    Just who?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    I think you are over-extending from your military background and assuming that civilian political organisations need to be, or are in practice, run as tightly, even at the highest levels. The White House, although the President is commander in chief, is a civilian outfit and not a military one. Observation suggests it's not uncommon for top level political outfits to be chaotic, shambolic and operated according to whims from on high. Perhaps especially at the level of national leadership, when there is nothing left "above" them to impose any order on the courtiers seeking the ear of the prince.

    As I said above, I can certainly believe Trump's setup is somewhat worse than most, but I remain of the view that shambolic, unsystematic, ad hoc decision making is far more common in international affairs than you, perhaps, thought. This might be one way in which your military background might incline you unduly to reject the obvious explanations for seemingly stupid decisions based upon human incompetence, and instead look for more sophisticated justifications based upon secret systematic reasoning.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. L.K says:

    One of the worst pieces by Buchanan I have ever read. He clearly does NOT know what the hell he is talking about.

    Pure garbage.

    It amounts to Buchanan drinking from the poisonous wells of msm sources, and then possibly adding his own biases/prejudices in order to come up with this fiction piece…

    Some good articles regarding the situation in Iran and the protests there;

    http://www.moonofalabama.org/2018/01/iran-protests-decrease-riots-increase-us-prepares-for-the-next-phase.html

    http://www.moonofalabama.org/2018/01/iran-europe-rejects-us-drive-to-war.html

    Good info from an Iranian in Iran;

    https://twitter.com/SayedMousavi7

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  79. gsjackson says:
    @Bill Jones
    Paddy of course is dead wrong on this.

    It was just one more Soros sourced "color revolution"

    Agreed. Scroll down to the Eric Margolis column to get the right take.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. @anon
    "Social freedom is irreconcilable with Iranian theocracy".

    Freedom is irreconcilable with Islam.

    Freedom is irreconcilable with”democracy”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. Frankie P says:
    @peterAUS
    Wow

    Bottom line: The Islamic Republic of Iran was not established to create a materially prosperous and socially free society, because, in the ayatollah’s theology, such societies, like the USA, are of the devil and corruptive of the people.
    Social freedom is irreconcilable with Iranian theocracy.
    And Iranian hard-liners, clerical and military, are not going to permit protests demanding Western freedom and material goods, to cause them to commit what they believe would be ideological suicide.

    The Iranian protests suggest that the Islamic Revolution, after 40 years, is failing the rising generation. It is hard to see how this is not ominous news for the Iranian regime.
    As it was not on the side of the Soviets, time is not on the side of the ayatollahs either.
     
    Well…Mr. Buchanan is definitely not a hawk.
    He also has better access to the real situation on the ground than most of people posting here.

    I just can’t see any good outcome if his assessment is correct.
    No way that the neocons won’t seize the opportunity in case of anything looking as uprising.
    Any situation even remotely resembling Hungary ‘56, China ’89 and Iraq ‘91 will definitely be seized for an intervention in Iran.

    I just don’t get an impression that the situation is that bad as Mr. Buchanan is describing.
    Confusing.

    I’m pasting my comment that I posted at the American Conservative (should be American Cuckservative or even American neo-neo-Conservative), a once-readable site that has gone down the tubes. I have taken the precaution at sites like the American Conservative and Mondoweiss of copying my comments and saving them as word documents, as the moderators so often scrub them and don’t post them. Thank God for unz.com. Ron, you truly are a wonder, a man with a real sense of freedom.

    PeterAus, this goes as a response to your comment, as you first say that he has better access to facts on the ground (he obviously doesn’t), and if his assessment is correct you can’t see a good outcome (his assessment is NOT correct), and then you finish with your confusing conclusion that the situation is not as bad as Mr. Buchanan is describing (it’s not).

    Yes, Pat Buchanan is delivering his major point: the US has no business getting involved in the Iranian protests, so we should just wait and see what happens. Most realist conservatives would agree with this point. The backstory that he presents, however, is so full of holes and mistruths, surface analyses and omissions, that it seriously impacts his major point. When you support your main thesis with details and facts made of excrement, don’t be surprised when people say it smells like an outhouse.

    “Rouhani’s dilemma? To grow Iran’s economy and improve the quality of life, he needs more foreign investment and more consumer goods. Yet any surge in material prosperity that Rouhani delivers is certain to undermine the religious faith undergirding the theocratic regime.”

    Pat Buchanan, like the presstitutes in mainstream media, fails to address two big issues when talking about Rouhani’s failure to grow Iran’s economy. They are 1. US driven international economic blockade and sanctions and 2. US driven international economic blockade and sanctions. Yes, Rouhani mistakenly hoped that the lifting of SOME of the sanctions brought about by JCPOA would immediately lift the economy and bring about a flood of international investment. It did not, and that is not surprising, considering the belligerent attitude that Washington still takes towards Iran and the poodle-like relationship of the European politicians and economies with the US. Anyone who believes that the economic blockade and sanctions have been lifted is NOT paying attention.

    “The protesters were red state and tea party types, demanding their own version of “Come Home, Iran” and “Iran First!””

    Wishful thinking by Pat and the west, propelled by dishonest journalism from the western media, hell bent on turning economic protests into political protests and then magnifying them into calls for regime change. Fact: A recent poll of Iranians shows great support for the military and other support Iran is giving other countries in the region: (“In general, to what degree do you support or oppose Iran providing help to”: Hezbollah (71% approve), government of Assad (66% approve), Hamas (70% approve) Shiites and Kurds in Iraq fighting ISIL (88% approve), Iran should send military personnel to Syria (63% approve).

    These numbers represent a mandate of the people.

    “How does a clerical regime speak to a people of whom 40 million have smartphones connecting them to an outside world on which they can see the freedom and prosperity they seek but their government cannot or will not deliver?”

    Is that really what they see, Pat? Are you sure that they don’t see the things that YOU see when you endlessly criticize the ongoing destruction of western Christian civilization? Societies from Europe to North America that have traded in their morality and spirituality for a cheap materialism that leaves them feeling empty and in need of painkillers (OxyContin), conveniently supplied by those who seek the end of their civilization and culture. Do those young Iranians yearn for our porn culture, our gutting of the traditional family, our embracing transgenderism and homosexuality as beacons of freedom, all conveniently pushed by the agenda of the usual suspects? Do they? Perhaps they agree with their religious authorities on some of these issues?

    In conclusion, when Pat Buchanan writes about the US and criticizes what he and many conservatives see as an ongoing project to hijack and gut the prevailing culture built over the past centuries, he wears one hat. That hat causes people to label him an Anti-semite, loses him lucrative TV talking head positions and places him at the margins of journalism. It has had an effect on his writing, a big effect in my view. When he writes about Iran, he suddenly ADOPTS many of the views of the progressive SJW left, crowing about our freedoms and democracy, our materialism and free culture, and to be honest, it doesn’t sound like Pat Buchanan.

    Yes, Pat, let’s stay the hell out of Iran. I’m with your there. But I liked you better when you were a truth-teller all the way, regardless of the names you were called.

    Frankie P

    Read More
    • Agree: bluedog, L.K
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    This comment by my mistake posted somewhere else. In fact is for this essay. Sorry

    [that may not even exist and drawing broad conclusions on the strength of a few slogans shouted by some anonymous figure on a video of unknown provenance. For instance, one chant of “No Gaza, no Lebanon, our lives for Iran,” and another of “Leave Syria alone, think about us” immediately led some talking heads to conclude that Iranians in general oppose intervention abroad.]

    You are an impostor NOT to mention the illegal sanctions that criminal American/zionist regime force upon Iranian people to keep Iranians poor, so they can pour into the street to give you opportunity to spread propaganda against Iran to serve your CRIMINAL GEOPOLITICAL INTEREST.

    Those dummies that believe slogan such as “leave Syria alone” chanted by YOUR OWN pawns – fifth column – is nothing and does not frighten Iranian government because majority of Iranian people want Iran fight against your geopolitical plot. but it SERVES YOUR CRIMINAL GEOPOLITICAL INTEREST. The terrorist American regime is very angry about DEFEAT in Syria and elsewhere, the criminal zionist jewish regime is very angry that ODED YINON PLOT is dead and traitor kurds could not erect A SECOND ISRAEL IN THE REGION. The world understand, except YOU.

    Why you petty analysis do not talk about many slogans that chanted by the Iranian people in large demonstrations against your terrorist activities in the region? Why don’t you write about many slogans chanted by Iranians in support of PALESTINIANS, SYRIANS, IRAQIS ?

    No doubt that there is protest in Iran, like any other country in the world. But why Iranian protest becomes a TOOL for the criminal terrorists like American/zionist criminal regimes against them? If your illiterate, zionist president is interested ‘a little’ in well being of Iranian people, then why criminal invader trump – who has erected ILLEGAL BASES IN SYRIA and YOU don’t condemn and never write about it, is using the protest, caused by so many sanctions and forced neo-liberal economy system that Rouhani is implementing to serve the interest of the zionist bankers, stealing from the poor, give it to the rich, like casino owner Trump is doing?

    If the criminal zionist bankers in Washington are slightly interested in Iranian well being, they should honor their own agreement, not in the interest of Iranian people but Rouhani darling of the west, NOT to step on it. This is so obvious to Iranian people and thank god Iranians are NOT dummies like the zioninst ‘followers’.

    Contrary to your propaganda, there was work of CIA/MI6/Mossad in the protest of 2009 and of course, in the recent protests that you ‘patriotic’ refuse to accept because you want to protect your zionist ‘president’ and hide the criminal hands of American regime in Iranian affairs.

    as Moussavian says:

    [Two, three weeks ago, a group of former senior US Democrat and Republican officials travelled to Tel Aviv; people who held positions like Vice President, Secretary of Defence, Secretary of State, National Security Advisor and Ambassador in previous cabinets. They had extensive discussions with their former Israeli counterparts about Iran and the region. The whole efforts of the American team was to convince the other side about the policy of “carrot and stick” on Iran. But those in Tel Aviv have insisted on the policy of a “carrot-free stick” against Iran. This type of meeting between politicians on the two sides is not unprecedented, but what surprised the US side was the presence of Director General of the Saudi General Intelligence Directorate Turki al-Faisal at the meeting in Tel Aviv. Israelis had invited him to present the views of the Saudi Crown Prince in an extremely hostile speech against Iran, and to make it clear to Americans that Washington’s Arab allies are now on Tel Aviv’s side.
    In the past, the United States was carrying out military operations directly to the countries of the region, such as Afghanistan and Iraq. But Washington’s new strategy is that the military strike be carried out by its allies with the US supports. The US money must not be spent on wars. No American’s blood must be split and the multiplied costs of the supports have to be paid. We see this in the war against Yemen. Tel Aviv also tries not to enter the conflict directly. Therefore, Riyadh and its Arab allies must assume responsibility for any military action to benefit from US and Zionist supports. Meanwhile, the cost of these supports must be paid. So, the Muslim countries should pay for every war which is waged.]

    YOU should talk about the crimes of American regime committed against Iranians, Syrians, Yemen, Iraqis, Afghani and so many other groups and countries, NOT Iranian protest that YOU HAVE A HAND IN IT. You should write about an illiterate brothel and hotel owner, an illiterate traitor ‘prince’ and illiterate zionist Kushner act as ‘secretary of state’ against zionist’s enemies, directed by Netanyahu, if you are really ‘patriotic’. You should expose your criminal regime if you want to be CREDIBLE, otherwise you loose out.

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/unprecedented-anti-iran-tendencies-gain-momentum-in-white-house/5625139

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  83. Randal says:
    @peterAUS

    But I am rather shocked that you are so shocked by the sheer extent of it as you see it portrayed in this book, because that makes me concerned that maybe I’m underestimating the scale of the problem. Maybe I’ll read the book sooner rather than later after all….
     
    I really suggest that.

    I can come across as simpleton, and, actually I am, when high level politics, economics and similar fine intellectual endevours are concerned.

    But I do know about organizations and chain of command and control when weapons are concerned.
    There are things you can be disorganized and chaotic about. But weapons are not. Or, when it happens something bad will result from it. All...the....time....

    That is why military has strict processes, procedures, manning and qualifications rules, checks and balances when weapons, let alone weapons systems are concerned. I spent decades in that environment.
    You know, after a while, one develops a feeling for a unit/military organization to such extent that in 5 minutes tops he can assess a unit. Five minutes.
    Show me any platoon of this world 5 minutes on live fire exercise and I'll tell you exactly how good they are. Disclaimer: will have to be able to see targets and hits/misses there.

    And then I read how White House works.............................................

    My point is that when I read how that launch was....done.....I just felt terrible. It's not there were bad rules, I could handle that; bad rules can be improved. There were no rules......methodology was pulled out of their asses.
    I am not sure I am explaining myself well here because I it's simply...mind boggling.

    You do NOT decide to launch cruise missiles at the area controlled by another nuclear superpower like that. EVER.

    Of course the writer has agenda, it's seen from a mile. Who cares about personalities, egos, backstabbing, I wouldn't care if they had daily sex parties in Oval Office.

    But, the book gives an impression that the Administration has been chaotic and disorganized.
    My point is the Administration can be anything else but disorganized.

    This is the gist:
    Trump didn't expect to win.
    When he won his team was not ready to take over.
    I can get that. BUT, what transpires is that the USA did NOT have a mechanism in place to ensure that the new administration shall be organizd no matter what.
    Because this is the first time a total outsider walked in. There was no provision for such event.
    THAT is the point I got from the book.

    It's almost as the new President has to bring with him all senior Civil Service personnel. That's apparently how Americans work.....
    So far everybody walking there was ready for that and knew how to do that.
    This team wasn't ready and apparently doesn't know how to do that.

    And now we are where you say:


    And there’s nobody above them to relieve them of command.

    Well, Congress might have been able to do it if the Democrats hadn’t already cried wolf far too many times.
     

    SOMEBODY has to get all that sorted out.
    And soon.

    Just who?

    I think you are over-extending from your military background and assuming that civilian political organisations need to be, or are in practice, run as tightly, even at the highest levels. The White House, although the President is commander in chief, is a civilian outfit and not a military one. Observation suggests it’s not uncommon for top level political outfits to be chaotic, shambolic and operated according to whims from on high. Perhaps especially at the level of national leadership, when there is nothing left “above” them to impose any order on the courtiers seeking the ear of the prince.

    As I said above, I can certainly believe Trump’s setup is somewhat worse than most, but I remain of the view that shambolic, unsystematic, ad hoc decision making is far more common in international affairs than you, perhaps, thought. This might be one way in which your military background might incline you unduly to reject the obvious explanations for seemingly stupid decisions based upon human incompetence, and instead look for more sophisticated justifications based upon secret systematic reasoning.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Agree.

    I am well aware of that shortcoming of mine.

    Still, this level of chaotic and unpredictable is much worse, IMHO, compared to previous administrations.

    I do agree that something good could come out of it, but, in the current world, with a couple of serious conflict spots, I am also concerned that very methodology can create real crisis.

    We have three spots where the potential conflict could go nuclear.
    That is all what matters. Oh, I know that most of people reading this have never been in real life situation where they believed "this is it, we are all dead in 30 minutes". We, relics from the Cold War are less and less in numbers around. That's fine. At least we've lived our time.

    The last time where that scenario could've happened the Administration was well structured, manned and organized. Reagan, well, probably Bush Sn.

    Russia is back and in confrontation.
    North Korea is not a joke.

    Those two things demand clarity in vision, clear strategy down to guys on the ground and clock precision senior staff work in Washington.
    According to book, nothing of the sort there.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. peterAUS says:
    @Randal
    I think you are over-extending from your military background and assuming that civilian political organisations need to be, or are in practice, run as tightly, even at the highest levels. The White House, although the President is commander in chief, is a civilian outfit and not a military one. Observation suggests it's not uncommon for top level political outfits to be chaotic, shambolic and operated according to whims from on high. Perhaps especially at the level of national leadership, when there is nothing left "above" them to impose any order on the courtiers seeking the ear of the prince.

    As I said above, I can certainly believe Trump's setup is somewhat worse than most, but I remain of the view that shambolic, unsystematic, ad hoc decision making is far more common in international affairs than you, perhaps, thought. This might be one way in which your military background might incline you unduly to reject the obvious explanations for seemingly stupid decisions based upon human incompetence, and instead look for more sophisticated justifications based upon secret systematic reasoning.

    Agree.

    I am well aware of that shortcoming of mine.

    Still, this level of chaotic and unpredictable is much worse, IMHO, compared to previous administrations.

    I do agree that something good could come out of it, but, in the current world, with a couple of serious conflict spots, I am also concerned that very methodology can create real crisis.

    We have three spots where the potential conflict could go nuclear.
    That is all what matters. Oh, I know that most of people reading this have never been in real life situation where they believed “this is it, we are all dead in 30 minutes”. We, relics from the Cold War are less and less in numbers around. That’s fine. At least we’ve lived our time.

    The last time where that scenario could’ve happened the Administration was well structured, manned and organized. Reagan, well, probably Bush Sn.

    Russia is back and in confrontation.
    North Korea is not a joke.

    Those two things demand clarity in vision, clear strategy down to guys on the ground and clock precision senior staff work in Washington.
    According to book, nothing of the sort there.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bluedog
    Russia is back and in conformation, which should read Russia is back and we are scared shitless,N.K is not a joke, of course they aren't but we have treated them as a joke, never keeping any of the agreements we made with them,(what else is new for we never keep any agreement we make) grew up in the cold war years and the steady endless propaganda so the M/I group could rip the tax payers off for a few more billion ,and now its starting all over again both the cold war and the propaganda..
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. bluedog says:
    @peterAUS
    Agree.

    I am well aware of that shortcoming of mine.

    Still, this level of chaotic and unpredictable is much worse, IMHO, compared to previous administrations.

    I do agree that something good could come out of it, but, in the current world, with a couple of serious conflict spots, I am also concerned that very methodology can create real crisis.

    We have three spots where the potential conflict could go nuclear.
    That is all what matters. Oh, I know that most of people reading this have never been in real life situation where they believed "this is it, we are all dead in 30 minutes". We, relics from the Cold War are less and less in numbers around. That's fine. At least we've lived our time.

    The last time where that scenario could've happened the Administration was well structured, manned and organized. Reagan, well, probably Bush Sn.

    Russia is back and in confrontation.
    North Korea is not a joke.

    Those two things demand clarity in vision, clear strategy down to guys on the ground and clock precision senior staff work in Washington.
    According to book, nothing of the sort there.

    Russia is back and in conformation, which should read Russia is back and we are scared shitless,N.K is not a joke, of course they aren’t but we have treated them as a joke, never keeping any of the agreements we made with them,(what else is new for we never keep any agreement we make) grew up in the cold war years and the steady endless propaganda so the M/I group could rip the tax payers off for a few more billion ,and now its starting all over again both the cold war and the propaganda..

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill jones
    Russia is back and like every other none Serf State is being confronted by the violent thugs of America.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. @Randal
    You do understand that being socially radical is relative to the existing status quo, right? I mean, if you don't then that might explain why you felt the need to ask the question in the first place, and save us both time.

    Yes, the ‘socially radical left’ adjusts its demands to the prevailing climate “where’e’er it be by land or sea”. That Overton Window moves an inch at a time, but nearly always in the same direction.

    In the UK of 1967, the speeches which most of the supporters of homosexual decriminalisation made in and out of Parliament (basically, ‘they’re sad disordered people, no one likes them or their acts, but is that sufficient reason to lock them up?‘) , would see them arrested for ‘hate speech’ today.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. Art says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    Half of Iran’s population is 31 or younger.
     
    "Half of Iran's population has been 31 or younger" for the last 15 years.

    Pat, you don't have children so you might not understand that, dang it, they do grow up.

    Also Pat, why is it you refrain from mentioning how US Congress has been intentionally attempting to subvert, undermine and overthrow Iran's government for even longer than "half of Iran's population is 31 or younger" (or even longer than Netanyahu has been claiming that "Iran is 2 years away from a bomb").

    Your co-religionist, Ed Royce, rep from Orange County CA, declared back in 2007 that sanctions on Iran were intended to make Iran's economy so bad that the people would riot and overthrow their government.

    Pat, why don't you call out the US Congress for violating the United Nations declarations against interfering in the domestic affairs of member states? Huh Pat?

    You wrote that WWII was an "unnecessary war;" you do realize, don't you Pat, that Jews provoked that war, beginning ~March 1933, by means of an economic boycott that was intended to "bring Germany to its knees" and cause the people to rise up and overthrow their government?

    And when that didn't work, the US and Britain firebombed the hell out of Germany; the firebombing campaigns were preceded by leafletting urging German civilians to rise up and overthrow their government. https://www.c-span.org/video/?196223-1/the-fire-bombing-germany-1940-1945
    Intentionally firebombing civilians is a war crime.

    Is that the trajectory for Iran, Pat?

    Do you think you will be around to write the book about how the firebombing of Iran was part of an "unnecessary war," or are you willing to stick your neck out and say

    STOP THIS GOD DAMN ECONOMIC WAR AGAINST IRAN! it is the equivalent of a war crime and it is a precursor to hot war.

    Pat, why don’t you call out the US Congress for violating the United Nations declarations against interfering in the domestic affairs of member states? Huh Pat?

    S2C,

    Pat still has a bit of geopolitical Nixonian chess player in him. He still wants to play the national government statecraft games, that ignore the people of these countries.

    Starting in 1953, America’s geopolitical statecraft on Iran has been un-godly.

    There is a real valid fight in Iran, it is between Persian culture and Islam – the US government must stay away – it would only make it worse and bloodier.

    Think Peace – Art

    p.s. The CIA should be limited to only spying – NO covert actions – PERIOD.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. @anonymous

    If there is an Iranian uprising and it results in a Tiananmen Square slaughter in Tehran, do we really want the U.S., which would not likely intervene to save the patriots, held morally accountable?
     
    AmeriKKKa, or more collectively The West, and morally accountable?!

    Much of the turmoil in the present world, the world I am able to witness, can be traced to White Supremacy. White Supremacy is fundamentally the antithesis of Morally Accountable.

    When will the likes of Pat, the racist Christian conservative hypocrites, stop talking such deceitful nonsense?

    -

    I just read an essay about something related;

    https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/01/05/hey-white-people-weve-got-to-stop-claiming-were-not-racist/


    But, as the following quote implies, there is not much hope that this guy's call will be heeded. Sure, there will be many who will rejoice, and say that is the way it is meant to be, but if you believe in a Higher Being, do you think that is the way He meant it to be?

    [I would like to tell you that such a day approaches when the people who believe themselves to be white renounce this demon religion [i.e. “white supremacism”] and begin to think of themselves as human. But I can see no real promise of such a day.]

    “When will the likes of Pat, the racist Christian conservative hypocrites, stop talking such deceitful nonsense?”

    Patrick Buchanan is a Roman Catholic. RC’s only read the Bible superficially and only when their priest tells them what it means. Because he’s RC he believes in a Kingdom now view where the RC Pope will rule the world from Jerusalem and Rome for 1000 years then Christ will come down from heaven and blow all the good boys/girls for straightening out those filthy non-Christians by the sword. RC’s eagerly look forward to getting their hands bloody turning the world in their vision.

    As a Baptist I believe the opposite. Christians are to preach and teach the Gospel of Christ without laying a single hand of violence (Golden Rule) on anyone. If a person rejects Christ as Savior then when they die God will judge them and do what He will, not the human agent. Christ doesn’t want me to touch a single soul and if they want me to leave, I’m to shake the dust off my feet and leave them alone.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. j says: • Website

    Thanks for mentioning the betrayal of the Hungarian rebels of 1956. The Iranian youth that never heard of it and knows no history, will certainly fall into the same trap. But it has to be done. Best wishes to the faceless heroes doing the work.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  90. The world that is misguided places inordinate emphasis on material processions. Corruption appears on land and sea as the results of the hands of man. Our country suffered far greater protest in the sixties than Iran has, with the then and now massive disparities between European Americans and African Americans yet it has survived. Iran as with most of the world influenced by greed need to abandon greed just like America need to abandon greed. Walmart declared raising it hourly standard pay rate and closing many Sam’s Club…..oh my goodness greed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  91. @bluedog
    Russia is back and in conformation, which should read Russia is back and we are scared shitless,N.K is not a joke, of course they aren't but we have treated them as a joke, never keeping any of the agreements we made with them,(what else is new for we never keep any agreement we make) grew up in the cold war years and the steady endless propaganda so the M/I group could rip the tax payers off for a few more billion ,and now its starting all over again both the cold war and the propaganda..

    Russia is back and like every other none Serf State is being confronted by the violent thugs of America.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Pat Buchanan Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored