According to ElPais, the Iranian petroleum ministry has denied that exports to 6 Euro countries will be cut (or has denied that a decision has been taken…). Timestamp on the article is 15:12 CET.

Posted by: Philippe | Feb 15 2012 14:36 utc | 4

I agree, Penny. It’s the beginnings of depopulation. Birth rates are going to plummet, infant death and death giving birth are going to skyrocket. Infectious disease is going to make a 4th quarter comeback. All this will result in a precipitously declining population. For the rest, have them murder each other in the streets. It doesn’t take much to pit one against the other until there are no more. Meanwhile, the Plutocrats remain far out of reach. And to think, it made us feel better, once upon a time, to call all of that, incompetence. Who will have the last laugh, that’s the question? I know what the answer will be, so long as no one asks the question.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Feb 15 2012 14:40 utc | 6

MB @ 6
To summarize, we are all Gazans now.

Posted by: mrm | Feb 15 2012 15:08 utc | 8

Most EU politicians are more or less conscious agents of the United States. The US has been sponsoring its favourites, men like Sarkozy and Blair for example, since the end of WW II. This is very well documented, particularly the interference in the “left” and the Unions to suppress communists and those socialists, the great majority in the 40s who saw the aggressive bullying US as a much bigger danger than the exhausted, weakened Soviet Union.
The current French “Socialist” party is a good example of the success of the patient and well financed campaign to draw the sting of patriotism out of the mass movements which emerged from the war. The EU narrative with its faux (tourist) internationalism and its complete agreement with Wall Street’s world view illustrates this.
Morocco is right that this is class war on a global scale and, as Greece and Ireland show, the answer to it is a robust nationalist critique of Quisling capitalism and governments always ready to betray the interests of the people to demonstrate their undying allegiance to the Capitalist class, whose great instrument is the US state.
The only thing that is holding back the anti-capitalist forces in Europe is the idiocy of intellectuals who have stopped thinking and surrendered to shibboleths calculated to divide the masses. A fear of popular nationalism, not jingoism, not racism but socialist patriotism is one; another is the dilettante Ghandian (cf Chris Hedges)refusal to understand that all violence comes from the state acting for the ruling class, and that any violent response is provoked, understandable and requires the defence of solidarity.

Posted by: bevin | Feb 15 2012 15:29 utc | 10

Supreme National Security Council (Wiki)
So not exactly but clearly requires direct approval from Khamenei and it’s above the legislative (which may be the source of the report, if there is any real action behind the early report).

Posted by: ThePaper | Feb 15 2012 15:40 utc | 12

@Unknown Unknows – WHICH news did IRIB confirm? Sanctions on Europe or no sanctions?

Posted by: b | Feb 15 2012 16:00 utc | 14

The sanctions were confirmed by the Channel 1 7 PM news.
The main news is the 9 PM news. But there is also an 8 pm one on Channel 4. I will keep you posted.
Seems Iran is finally giving the warmongers a taste of their own medicine.

Posted by: Unknown Unknowns | Feb 15 2012 16:19 utc | 16

Oil is sold in the ‘free market’ – world, in fact one of the few commodities that is. Putting sanctions on, or refusing to sell, or buy, or having favorite suppliers is a lot of hogwash.
The trade just goes on in the usual way, that is what everyone wants.
US-Irs-EU stances on this matter is a lot of silly hype and self defeating smoke. And, huh, the free market lifts all boats?
Sanctions and the like in this area are just feeble posturing. The US will continue to be oil dependent and Iran will continue to sell its oil. Oil traders (who take a big skim) are laughing over coke and coffee, they deal with this dumb shit all the time. E.g. Oil for food under Saddam.
In a way, it is like electricity. Where the electrons come from is impossible to say…who buys them and uses them..as well.
Of course, a concerted effort to cut energy to country X can be implemented. That means destroying grids and pipelines and controlling imports by road, check points and so on. Maybe one could do for Albania, but others would also suffer, not good for anyone. Stopping an energy producer from selling or exporting is not on the cards.
The EU is just making nice hypocritical faces at US-Isr.

Posted by: Noirette | Feb 15 2012 16:53 utc | 18

What I find fascinating to watch is how different this conflict is than the Iraq conflict. It is, of course, by and large just one more colonial war. The imbalance of power between a colonial superpower and its allies on one side, and a small country brownish (if Aryans will forgive) people without a formal superpower protector on the other, is as massive as ever just in counting the weapons. But the colonial game is far more balanced now than it was even a decade ago.
Does anyone remember how the 2003 Iraq war began, with no-fly-zone aircraft regularly bombing Iraq, “weapons inspectors” running around mapping targets, and with fascinating spectacle of Iraq destroying its surface to surface missiles (Al Samoud) in order to make its invasion easier? The “definant” Saddam Hussein gave everything in a desperate bid to avoid invasion.
Iran is quite different. Oh, it gives a lot: UN inspectors have wide latitude even though Iran knows many report to the CIA; Iran absorbs far more blows (drones and assinations and bombings) than it gives out; and Iran has repeatedly offered to compromise and accomodate with the US et al. But there are limits. Iran isn’t afraid to push back financially, diplomatically, militarily, and even nuclearly (is that a word?). The balance of power has shifted so far that there is ZERO possibility of Iran simply bending over and licking the US’s boot. IT just amazes me how far the US has fallen in less than a decade, and how far it has yet to fall.

Posted by: Bill | Feb 15 2012 17:30 utc | 20

Bill @ 20:
Iran is not a small country. It is larger than the following countries combined: Iran > Britain (England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland) + France + Germany + Switzerland + Italy. Blame the Mercator projection, I guess.
The other thing as far as the balance of power goes (which your post addressed) is that Uncle Weasel has a glass chin. Iran has been producing analogues of the Chinese C-802 anti-ship cruise missile since 1995. We are now in our fifth generation of this missile, which has a turbojet motor that is substantially faster than the French Exocet missile motor that Argentina used to sink that British ship in the Malvinas Islands in the late 80’s (Faulklands). (wiki: Noor missile) That missile, and her sister, the Gader, which has a larger range (200 km) means that in the event of the start of hostilities, the US will pull back from the Persian Gulf and into the Sea of Oman and even further back into the Indian Ocean, if it knows what’s good for its mercenary sailors. Given that, and given Iran’s tactical ballistic missile capabilities (accuracy/range x quantity), and given the fact that there are so many high-value targets within easy reach of our armed forces (for example, the deep sea port of Ras Tanura where Saudi crude is loaded onto supertankers, and similar such ports of Kuwait, Qatar, and the UAE, and the pump-stations that transport the crude from the well-heads to port are similarly easy targets)… given all this, and given the fact that repair of said ports and pup stations would be a project that would take at least a year in peacetime conditions (which would not obtain, of course, for many years), and given that oil is to Uncle Weasel what heroin is to an addict, I think that these are teh kinds of considerations that give Uncle Weasel pause. And it must have been these considerations that made the generals rein in the madmen (Cheney and Rumsfeld) during the reign of that clown, George the Younger.
Like I have told Uncle Weasel in the past:
We’re here, we’re queer, get used to it!

Posted by: Unknown Unknowns | Feb 15 2012 18:11 utc | 22

OK, the 9 o’clock news got the low down. According to it, Iran has NOT cut off ANY country (not even France and Holland) YET. The ambassadors were called in and were warned that if they do not change their position on the oil embargo, Iran will be forced to look to other customers for its oil, and will not be held accountable if in that event, they will no longer be able to supply their respective countries with oil. The Foreign Ministry also told the ambassadors that [by the way] Iran already has customers lined up, and is only holding them off because of Iran’s concern for the welfare of European citizens, who are going through a particularly harsh winter currently.

Posted by: Unknown Unknowns | Feb 15 2012 18:19 utc | 24

Relax, b, it was satire, but satire has a point. The point is that many in the U.S., especially the “Conservatives”, will view it that way because of the propaganda.
Still, it’s a joke what Ali Stone is doing, IMO. The Republican Guard has to love “American” fools such as this.
I wonder if Ali will get a sigheh, considering the West’s lax standards regarding sex outside of marriage and Iran’s harsh penalties if you’re caught engaging in such forbidden acts? At least Iran’s proactive compared to much of the West. They’ve found a way to legalize prostitution…something they’ve yet to do in the U.S., with the exception of Nevada.
http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/03/temporary-marriage-iran-islam

Iranian feminists ardently oppose sigheh. In the summer of 2008, they were infuriated by President Ahmadinejad’s attempts to push through a new “family protection” law that would have made it easier for men to contract temporary marriages. Many of those activists took to the streets after his contested reelection the following June. “One of the main attributes of marriage is publicity and the celebration of it,” said Ziba Mir-Hosseini, a legal anthropologist who wrote a study of Islamic family law. “Women who enter this kind of marriage never talk about it. That’s why I call it a socially defective marriage.” While the ayatollahs see temporary marriage as good for both sexes, feminists point out its lopsided nature: It is largely the prerogative of wealthy married men, and the majority of women in sighehs are divorced, widowed, or poor. Only a man has the right to renew a sigheh when it expires—for another mehr—or to terminate it early. While women may have only one husband at a time, men may have four wives and are permitted unlimited temporary wives. Rezvan Moghadam, the director of a women’s health nonprofit, put it bluntly: “Men do it for fun. Women do it for money; they don’t enjoy it at all.”………….

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Feb 15 2012 18:48 utc | 26

MB @ 26: Thanks for the link, interesting. Not a widely known practice in Islam.

Posted by: ben | Feb 15 2012 19:09 utc | 28

For some comic relief.
Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8,500th Nuclear Weapon
TEHRAN—Amidst mounting geopolitical tensions, Iranian officials said Wednesday they were increasingly concerned about the United States of America’s uranium-enrichment program, fearing the Western nation may soon be capable of producing its 8,500th nuclear weapon. “Our intelligence estimates indicate that, if it is allowed to progress with its aggressive nuclear program, the United States may soon possess its 8,500th atomic weapon capable of reaching Iran,” said Iranian foreign minister Ali Akbar Salehi, adding that Americans have the fuel, the facilities, and “everything they need” to manufacture even more weapons-grade fissile material. […]

Posted by: Juan Moment | Feb 15 2012 19:38 utc | 30

b, you’re really digging yourself a hole here. You have to stop. Unlike you, I’m not going to carry water for Tyranny in Iran just because I oppose the Tyranny at home. What’s ironic is that our Palestinian friends here in the U.S. gave my wife and I two books to read several months prior at a dinner engagement after they had returned from a month-long trip to Jerusalem. One of the books suggested had my wife and I literally rolling our eyes. One look at it…the title, I mean, told it all. It was obvious propaganda, and although the story may have been true, it doesn’t mean it was indicative. But, and here’s the ironic part, it was proposed to us by a Muslim Palestinian woman, and now you have called her “a clueless racist idiot who does not know shit about the world and certainly even less about Iran.” I’m going to tell her you said so.
Here’s the book she suggested. I held my nose and read it just to see how far the propaganda would go…..and man, I tell you, it was over the top.
http://www.amazon.com/Am-Nujood-Age-10-Divorced/dp/0307589676
That aside, your brush off of the article I posted isn’t very convincing, and your partiality and lack of objectivity is showing. You’re not being an equal opportunity critic.
And to Unknown, isn’t it always the men who say such things. The implication is that one shouldn’t pass judgement on men taking women so young….cultures are different…some are more liberal about such things. Sorry, bubba, that’s the talk of a rapist, and I’m not buying it. I don’t see young girls protesting in the streets for marriage at any age, but you, you seem to advocate it if that’s what they want…and we all know who the they are in that equation.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Feb 15 2012 19:53 utc | 32

@MB – so you are comparing a (Sunni/Salafi) redneck Yemen to an industrialized (Shia) enlightened Iran? That only proves that you do nothing about the Middle East and its countries.

Posted by: b | Feb 15 2012 20:17 utc | 34

Ok PLEASE stop referring to the REVOLUTIONARY GUARD as the “Republican Guard”.
Iraq had Republican Guards. Iran has Revolutionary Guards. They’re very different in many other ways too.
Secondly the practice of sigheh in Iran — to the extent that it is actually practiced — is actually popular with OLDER WOMEN.: As Shahla Haeri revealed in her 1989 book, Law of Desire (published in the UK by I B Tauris), many sigheh contracts in Iran are transformed into permanent, loving relationships. Contrary to popular myth, it is usually not men but women, particularly divorcees and widows, who seek sigheh marriage. Haeri’s extensive survey showed that many older women approached “young men, particularly handsome ones, directly and frequently”.

Posted by: Cyrus | Feb 15 2012 21:24 utc | 36

it’s all really simple. All you have to do is remind yourself about one simple fact. b supports any government, tyranny, theocratic nightmare misogynist classist oligarchy, whether it’s Syria, Iran, Libya, Sudan, Iraq under Saddam Hussein. It doesn’t matter. All that matters is that these despots and tyrants oppose the US. There is absolutely zero nuance here. The protesters in Egypt were beautiful people. but the protesters in Libya were thugs. The insurgency in Iraq was particularized aggregation of pan-nationalists. The insurgency in Syria is “salafist.”
He’s either confused or just a hypocrite, or both.

Posted by: slothrop | Feb 15 2012 23:19 utc | 38

@ Morocco Bama
Probably my first time disagreeing with you, but find alot to disagree with in some of your comments today. Firstly on this line, which completely rubs me the wrong way.

“Unlike you, I’m not going to carry water for Tyranny in Iran just because I oppose the Tyranny at home.

I would contend that any enemy of colonialism and imperialism would see that defeating a global tyranny (ie the US Empire) is in the Greater Good and would even be willing to side with local tyrants on that just task. After all did Churchill and Roosevelt not side with the tyrant Stalin to defeat an even worse tyrant like Hitler? Wouldn’t you have supported Spartacus and the rebels in the Third Servile War in order to bring an end to the Roman Empire which enslaved people from Britain to Iraq even though most of the rebels raped, looted and pillaged their way through the empire? Same with William Wallace (who was quiete bloodthristy but fought for freedom) in Scotland against Britain?
I would also say that the Iranian revolutionary government is not a tyranny. Power does not rest solely in the hands of the Ayatollahs. They have an elected President and lively elected Majlis, numourous power centres in the military, various factions like the Principlists, an influential merchent-business class and many more factions in the Religious councils of Qom. A tyrant is someone who takes all power for himself. In Iran power is incredibly diluted amoung all these centres of power.

I’ll tell you what, let’s call them what they really are….thugs, and in that sense, they are very much like the Republican Guard of Iraq.

I funnily enough own a t-shirt of the Revolutionary Guard flag (its similar to the Hezbollah flag) and wear it proudly. Thugs you say? Compared to what? Compared to Americas legions of savages? I’d support Irans Revolutionary Guard over American brownshirts any day. Why? Because they fight imperialism and therefore there cause is just. Simultaneously if China invaded the US, I would support the right-wing gun nut militias even though I didn’t agree with them politically, also because their cause would be just.
Finally on the marriage comments, I find it mindboggling how one of the most puritianical countries in the world objects so passionately to “slightly” more puritancial societies. On Iran I would say that the US and Iran are both around a draw. Both have the death penalty, both have religious extremist factions close to or in power at any given time, both are too uptight about sex and morals (even though I suspect the Iranian population would generally be more adventerous).

Posted by: Colm O’ Toole | Feb 16 2012 0:07 utc | 40

anyone who’s spent time here over the years knows that b persistently championed the Iraqi insurgency as predominately nationalist in character. This actually turned out to be mostly incorrect; indisputably incorrect now because the Shia basically engaged in ethnic cleansing and sectarian politics. the only reason that he persisted in doing so was because the insurgency opposed US occupation.
But now, of course the analysis strategically condescends the considerable factiousness of the Syrian opposition, and indeed the Syrian insurgency. None other than Tariq Ali explains this most recently.

Posted by: slothrop | Feb 16 2012 1:13 utc | 42

Regardless of whether Iran has really cut oil export to Europe, crude oil spot price is now $101.
Even though Saudi claimed they will not allow oil to go above $100
http://www.cnbc.com/id/46285933/Saudi_Arabia_Will_Not_Let_Oil_Go_Above_100_Prince

Posted by: nikon | Feb 16 2012 1:25 utc | 44

You’re putting words into b’s mouth, sloth. He never came out for the insurgency as a nationalist movement the way you’re trying to represent.

Posted by: china_hand-other | Feb 16 2012 1:52 utc | 46

Abu Mus’ab al-Suri has been released from Syrian jail. He is considered by many as ‘the most articulate exponent of the modern jihad and its most sophisticated strategies’
“A veteran of the Muslim Brotherhood uprising in Syria in 1982 when the city of Hama was virtually destroyed by the Baathist regime of Hafez al-Assad, al-Suri has been a persistent critic of bin Laden’s strategy and approach to jihad. Holding to the view that the “road to Jerusalem lies through Cairo” (meaning that Palestine could only be liberated after the Mubarak regime had been toppled and replaced by an “Islamic” one)”

Posted by: nikon | Feb 16 2012 3:49 utc | 48

Bill at 27:
Yes; I agree with most of what you said. Geographically, Iran is a very large country, but economically and militarily, it is not a big actor. But I think you would be making a mistake to think of its ability to project power as “a joke”. This is not so only because of its geopolitical location. A boy with a sling-shot is a nuisance to a man who lives in a house with wall to wall glass windows, but a boy with a sling-shot is a deadly menace to a colony of settlers on the moon, where the only thing between their atmosphere and the near vacuum of space are those same wall to wall windows.
The disrespect with which Uncle Weasel and its Europoodle Freak Show carry out its discourse with Iran is actually the respect afforded by a superior force to an inferior one in disguise. Iran knows this, and understands. And we also know that it is not because of our “strength”, but rather, by virtue of our opponent’s weakness, and due to the fact that people who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

Posted by: Unknown Unknowns | Feb 16 2012 4:49 utc | 50

Abu Mus’ab al-Suri has been released from Syrian jail. He is considered by many as ‘the most articulate exponent of the modern jihad and its most sophisticated strategies’ Holding to the view that the “road to Jerusalem lies through Cairo” (meaning that Palestine could only be liberated after the Mubarak regime had been toppled and replaced by an “Islamic” one)”
Muslim Brotherhood’s Spiritual Leader Yusuf al-Qaradawi told Hamas’ leader Ismail Haniyeh “victory is near and at the door”
Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh to Iranian People: You Are Partners in Arab Victories

Posted by: nikon | Feb 16 2012 8:00 utc | 52

There is no reason to believe his conversion is less than sincere
Yes there is. His daddy’s a big hollywood producer/director and they know the ins and outs of publicity and public relations. He could have converted to Islam right here in the good ol US of A, but instead decided to take the grandstanding route and did it in Iran. What does Ali have against Minister Louis Farrakhan that he insulted his prestige and status by circumventing his moral authority and instead outsourced his conversion to Iran? Is Ali a racist? He didn’t want a black “American? Muslim performing his conversion? Or maybe it’s that Farrakhan and his brethren don’t like to ski?
John Walker Lindh comes to mind. Either it’s a clever psyops to get naive dissenting “Americans” to aid and abet a perceived enemy, or this guy’s yet another Lee Harvey Oswald in this chess match between two tyrannies for hearts and minds.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Feb 16 2012 13:26 utc | 54

MB @ 32:
So I tell you that the marriage laws in your redneck of the woods (or a certain island state therein) is lower than it is in Iran, and that besides, you would have to untangle yourself from the “scientific” basis of your moral position before you start building “humanitarian corridors” into mine, and you call me a rapist. Charming.
My response wasn’t related to the marriage laws in Hawaii. IMO, that’s equally screwed up. My argument isn’t about moral superiority, well, not about the West being morally superior to the East or any such nonsense. That would be a silly argument, just as it would be a silly argument to make a claim directly symmetrical to that, and I suppose that’s my argument. Neither side of this fabricated conflict is morally superior, and if I perceive propaganda is being pushed to lend more legitimacy to one side of it, I’m going to speak up, and so I did.
Since you brought up charming, isn’t it charming that Bangkok and Thailand in general, apparently doesn’t hold itself to any of that morally superior nonsense, and in so doing, a very successful and profitable business has flourished despite the Puritanical Pantomimes of the so-called do-gooders. It’s a haven for those encumbered by the morally superior cultural attitudes of their countries of origin, and who are we to judge if a fifty-year old Iranian man, or a fifty year old British, German or American man wants some eight year-old booty, be it male or female?
Like I said, it’s always the men who are so glib with such things. I wonder why that is? Maybe the same reason it’s the men who are always at the forefront of the fight against abortion and contraception.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Feb 16 2012 13:50 utc | 56

I think the photo accompanying this article about Ali’s conversion is strikingly poignant. She’s covered from head to toe, and he has his shirt open revealing some bare chest.
http://www.thewrap.com/movies/article/oliver-stones-son-sean-converts-islam-35374
Ali had this to say about his romance with Islam and Iran:

Stone, who studied history at Princeton, has launched a co-production company to make movies based on Iranian history and culture. He said in September that he wants to make films in Iran, “because they’re the biggest filmmakers in the Middle East, I’m very international-minded.”

A commenter had this to say about his naive pandering:

I can’t wait to hear his comments about his newly discovered land of opportunity for film makers under the dictatorship of Ahmadinejad and Co. It might be worth his paying a visit to those filmmakers arrested in September2011; Jafar Panahi, Katayoun Shahabi, Naser Saffarian, Hadi Afarideh, Mojtaba Mirtahmasb, Shahnam Bazdar and Mohsen Shahrnazdar. Panahi is currently under house arrest banned from making any films, Safarian and Shahrnazdar have been released, the fate of the others is unkown. The actress Marzieh Vafamer also imprisoned and sentenced to 90 lashes.

If that same standard of Justice is applied in the USA, Ali and Ollie would both be imprisoned for life, in the least.
But hey, he’s a good looking chap…and I’m sure he’s charming.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Feb 16 2012 15:14 utc | 58

Also if you want to talk about what clothes celebrities are wearing I hear that the Huffington Post has a quiet interesting Celebrity Section dedicated to the topic. 😀
Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/celebrity/

Posted by: Colm O’ Toole | Feb 16 2012 15:32 utc | 60

no, of course, this is not about Iran at all, because remember, last time it was the Soviet Union.
this is about the need for an enemy, who is evil because it is us who are good …

Posted by: somebody | Feb 16 2012 16:35 utc | 62

And b is right about you not knowing a fucking thing about Islam, when you talk about Louis Farrakhan and Ali Stone. Know you limits and talk from your expertise, if you have one.
Once again, you fail to understand satire. The comment is purposely ridiculous in order to make the point that throwing out the race card based off of flimsy, and misinterpreted findings, is a low blow, and not an argument from expertise.
However, it did manage to snuff out yet another quail. Care to elaborate on your comment about Minister Louis Farrakhan and Islam? Are you asserting that his brand of Islam is illegitimate? If so, why?

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Feb 16 2012 16:55 utc | 64

MB @ 64
No, I don’t care to elaborate, except to say that the objection was not to Farrakhan per se, but to the fact that Ali Stone has reverted to Shi’a Islam, and so it would not make sense for the good minister to minister to his reversion, as he is not Shi’a, to say the least.

Posted by: Unknown Unknowns | Feb 16 2012 17:33 utc | 66

“The conversion to Islam is not abandoning Christianity or Judaism, which I was born with,” Stone told Fars News Agency. “It means I have accepted Mohammad and other prophets.”
Yup, looks like a heartfelt conversion. The chance to make some quick money in Iran was not a factor at all in his decision.

Posted by: Ya Hussein | Feb 16 2012 17:55 utc | 68

Colm @69, you’ve created a Strawman in place of my argument and its intent. I understand and respect Iran defending its independence from a U.S. and/or Israeli attack. That doesn’t mean I support the Tyranny of the Mullahs and The Revolutionary Guard. It is compatible to have both views if your guiding principle is opposition to Tyranny.
Also, I didn’t say anything about violence versus non-violence. You’re wrong if you think I am one of those that cling to non-violence. I don’t. However, I also don’t subscribe to undirected, meaningless violence. If violence is to be used to oppose tyranny after other less violent methods have proven to be futile, then violence must be used wisely, otherwise it can be quickly misdirected and counterproductive.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Feb 16 2012 18:21 utc | 70

b, do what the Mullahs would do, meaning I’m not hauling my dumbass out voluntarily.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Feb 16 2012 18:51 utc | 72

here’s the cover for french newspaper (or toilet paper should I say) Liberation tomorrow
http://s4.noelshack.com/uploads/images/15473174967756_up_1329429509.jpg
great, now FSA = zapateros, Che etc according to liberation… How low can that press go…

Posted by: rototo | Feb 16 2012 22:18 utc | 74

iirk, I meant Zapatists, not Zapatero, need to sleep 🙂

Posted by: rototo | Feb 16 2012 22:20 utc | 76

Your forbearance b is admirable. Unfortunately it is just such graciousness that is taken advantage of by the shills. At least slothrop’s diatribes are usually mercifully short if not sweet.

Posted by: juannie | Feb 16 2012 22:34 utc | 78

“…..meaning I’m not hauling my dumbass out voluntarily”
Well, that much is obvious, considering your inability to remember the lyrics of a successful Swan Song.

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Feb 17 2012 14:30 utc | 80

US officials believe Iran sanctions will fail, making military action likely: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/17/us-officials-iran-sanctions-military-action

Posted by: Martin | Feb 17 2012 21:19 utc | 82

The Atlantic:

[…] At the end of my internship State offered me a job to work exclusively on Iran issues. I immediately turned it down because I was really worried that we would end up in the exact situation we are in now after imposing more sanctions. My experience was so discouraging that I quit working in international affairs altogether, despite supportive mentors. I had moved to D.C. right after Obama was elected, thinking that Afghanistan and Iraq were two good reasons why our foreign wars would slow down. But the drums of war were growing louder and stronger even with a new administration that lauded “smart power” and international cooperation. The foreign policy community in D.C. is really a scary club of warmongers with very few exceptions. […]

Glenn Greenwald:

I’m finishing up a long investigative article that will be posted later this morning, but I just could not let go unnoted this commentary on The Iranian Threat by CNN’s Erin Burnett (“frightening,” she observed). I barely know what to say about it — the critiques of media fear-mongering I wrote the last two days apply in spades to this — but it really just mocks itself. It’s the sort of thing you would produce if you set out to create a mean-spirited parody of mindless, war-hungry, fear-mongering media stars, but you wouldn’t dare go this far because you’d want the parody to have a feel of realism to it, and this would be way too extreme to be believable. She really hauled it all out: WMDs! Terrorist sleeper cells in the U.S. controlled by Tehran! Iran’s long-range nuclear missiles reaching our homeland!!!! She almost made the anti-Muslim war-mongering fanatic she brought on to interview, Rep. Peter King, appear sober and reasonable by comparison. […]

Posted by: Juan Moment | Feb 18 2012 16:25 utc | 84