Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
January 17, 2016

In Less Than 24 Hours U.S. Breaks Spirit Of Agreement With Iran

Just yeterday, shortly before the Iranian nuclear deal went into implementation. I asked

How long until the U.S. will, one way or another, transgress against it - if not in letter then in spirit?

The answer is in. It took the U.S. less than 24 hours to break the spirit of the deal and to again promote hardliners in Tehran:

The US Treasury says it is imposing new ballistic missile sanctions on Iran after Tehran released five American prisoners. The move also comes less than a day after some of the sanctions imposed on Iran over its nuclear program were removed by the US and EU.

Washington has imposed sanctions on 11 companies and individuals for helping to supply Iran’s ballistic missile program, the Treasury Department stated.

“Iran’s ballistic missile program poses a significant threat to regional and global security, and it will continue to be subject to international sanctions,” Adam J. Szubin, acting Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, said in a press release.
The US move comes after an Iranian missile test carried out in October that broke a UN Security Council resolution restricting the development of missiles that are capable of carrying nuclear warheads.

The nuclear agreement makes sure that Iran does not have and can not develop nuclear warheads. What sense then does it make to restrict its ballistic missile capabilities?

Of Iran's neighbors Pakistan, Russia and Saudi Arabia all have medium to long range ballistic missiles. Missiles from Israel and the U.S. also can reach Tehran. Four out of those five have nuclear warheads for their missiles. Turkey is developing its own offensive missile capability.

Absent an Iranian program to develop nuclear weapons there is absolutely no justification for the upholding of the UN resolution and for new sanctions.

Even before U.S. prisoners were to be freed by Iran yesterday as part of the nuclear Hillary Clinton irresponsibly called for new sanctions on Iran. On can understand that as the money she wastes for egomaniac campaigning to become president comes from Israel-Firsters like Haim Saban.

Saban says his greatest concern is to protect Israel. At a conference in Israel, Saban described his formula. His three ways to influence American politics were: make donations to political parties, establish think tanks, and control media outlets.

Clinton's statement likely added a seven digit figure to her campaign fund.

That Clinton is corrupt down to her last fiber is not news. But there was no such reason for the Obama administration to now make this move. It is an expression of arrogance and disdain for decency.

Next month the people of Iran will vote for a new parliament. The Rouhani government, with which the nuclear deal was successfully negotiated, now looks as if it was duped into the deal. The hardliners opposed to that government were just given the very best argument they could have asked for. They always said the U.S. can not be trusted. The Obama administration proved them to be right.

Posted by b on January 17, 2016 at 16:01 UTC | Permalink


good call on that one b... thanks.. i thought it was just a matter of time, but that was quick!

seems like money makes a lot of calls.. in this case who knows how much from one small country to one even smaller minded politician..

Posted by: james | Jan 17 2016 16:34 utc | 1

Mr. Obama continually works to protect his right flank by implementing measures such as these new sanctions to ward off attacks from the right. (He never reciprocates to move leftward as the Democratic party and the DNC abhor the left even more than than they dislike the right, IMO. The right gives them fundraising opportunities ("Look how much less bad we are than THESE guys") but the left only asks difficult questions they don't want to answer, and who needs that.) It's this half-hearted effort to be as bad as Bush that ensures no one likes him. Progressives with any honesty realize Obama is carrying water for Wall Street, the military-security-industrial complex, and corporate power in general and right wingers hate him because, well, he's not white and he's not a Republican even if he carries out their policies.

I agree this latest move is a complete slap in the face to the multi-polar coalition and Iran, as well as being counterproductive to US needs. Iran is in no way a threat to the US, only a threat to the US's horrible allies in the Middle East by virtue of being a rational nation. You can't have a rational national thriving--it might set an example for others.

Posted by: WorldBLee | Jan 17 2016 16:41 utc | 2

Besides the fact that Obama wanted to end sanctions up to 10 years ago (see my previous posts), this was a done deal, as I have said repeatedly. And it will hold.

It was done because, a) Iran was set for seduction instead of destruction (too big a nut), better to acknolwedge the power in some cases for some time, b) sanctions were ‘ineffective’ (there were a lot of papers about that!) c) pressure from corps and big biz (oil industry, automotive, pharma), who went basically batshit at being locked out of a lucrative market…

d) sanctions were in any case not being followed. Some EU court had already declared them illegal, see one link below (and under US pressure had its opinion reversed), but trade was going on with cumbersome round-abouts of many kinds. Note, too, that many countries did not obey these sanctions (Iran’s main imports come from the likes of China, Turkey, etc. ), or only did so in a fakey mealy-mouthed way to appease the US and give ‘fake’ guarantees.

Naturally, having hyped up the US public for decades about the evil Iran (gotta have enemies and it’s hard to change tack), that can’t just be turned off with the flip of a switch. Hillary and the Republicans (see the Repub. debate! It is still real men go to Teheran, and all about those stupid guys on a ship that went astray) and the neo-cons will continue for a while to bash Iran.

The world is no longer interested, it is understood this is empty posturing. The US is just a laughing stock or ignored, on this issue.

Of course the US can’t be trusted. But what can they do about a state of affairs they themselves championed and brought about?

Posted by: Noirette | Jan 17 2016 16:42 utc | 3

Well, of course the culture of mendacity in US government can be relied on to piss in the punch bowl. But the Iranians must have factored that into their planning.

Iran is about to get a lot richer and according to President Rouhani, "everybody is happy except the Zionists, the warmongers who are fuelling sectarian war among the Islamic nation, and the hardliners in the U.S. congress." (ZH)

Of course, in spite of all the sabre rattling, a no war scenario with your neighbors means it is all academic in any case. If you are not going to use nukes then not having them is of little consequence -- assuming of course that there are other means of blocking the usual suspects and their cunning plans for subversive domination.

Iran wins out of this deal and now the narrative turns on if and what the apartheid state of Israel has and needs etc. The Saudi regime of thugs is just a red flag distraction to divert attention from this obvious next step in the ME debate.

Posted by: x | Jan 17 2016 16:58 utc | 4

there is absolutely no justification for the upholding of the UN resolution

Iran isnt breaking UN resolution in any case. Russia officially dismissed US bogus interpretation a month ago, since Iran's ballistic missiles doesnt have nuclear capability.

Rouhani government, with which the nuclear deal was successfully negotiated

Deal was already negotiated by Ahmadinejad's government, in Oman, clandestinely. Rouhani just made it official.

The hardliners opposed to that government were just given the very best argument they could have asked for. The always said the U.S. can not be trusted. The Obama administration proved them to be right.

Its not news to anyone, even to Rouhani.

Khamenei gave green light to the deal despite knowing US will try to sabotage it. Why? Because Iran gave up non-existent nuke program for sanctions removal, and while US by default will be reintroducing sanctions at whatever fake pretext they want ("terrorism", regional destabilization, human rights, etc), these sanctions will no longer be international.

In other words, US will be isolating itself more than hurting Iran, thats why Khamenei allowed this deal to be signed. US isnt surprising anyone, not Rouhani, not Khamenei, not hardliners.

Posted by: Harry | Jan 17 2016 17:00 utc | 5

that didn't take long.........

he United States on Sunday imposed sanctions against 11 individuals and entities involved in Iran's ballistic missile program as a result of Tehran's firing of a medium-range ballistic missile, a new punishment one day after the Obama administration lifted economic penalties against the Islamic Republic over its nuclear program.

The missile program "poses a significant threat to regional and global security, and it will continue to be subject to international sanctions," said Adam J. Szubin, the Treasury's acting undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence in a statement.

Posted by: mad1 | Jan 17 2016 17:13 utc | 6

adam j. szubin.....all one needs to know

Posted by: flyod | Jan 17 2016 17:17 utc | 7

Ah so Cohen is going to go from overt economic warfare at Treasury to covert economic warfare of all types over at Langley.

Cohen returned to the Treasury in 2009 from the Washington law firm Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, where he practiced for seven years. His practice at Wilmer Hale focused on civil and criminal litigation, the defense of regulatory investigations into accounting and financial fraud, and anti-money laundering and sanctions compliance advice for a broad range of financial institutions including banks, broker-dealers, insurance companies, mutual funds and hedge funds.

He's a good choice, looks like he's been helping big banks buck regulations, evade sanctions, and hide their money-laundering for years, so he knows all the tricks... another rider of the revolving door between Wall Street and government.

Posted by: guest77 | Jan 17 2016 17:29 utc | 8

Today's Jerusalem Post added an extra layer of...rubbish, I guess one would say politely.

"WASHINGTON - The Obama administration on Sunday announced new sanctions designations targeting Iran for its ballistic missile activity, less than 24 hours after the landmark nuclear deal with Tehran entered into force, US Treasury Department officials announced.

The White House came under fire on Saturday after reports surfaced that, in negotiating a swap of prisoners with Iran, it had been successfully threatened by Iran's foreign ministry against implementing the new missile penalties. In October, Iran test-fired new ballistic missile models– designed to carry large payloads, particularly nuclear warheads - in violation of existing international laws."

But yes, Hillary had called for new sanctions already yesterday. Ducks in a row, and all that.

Posted by: wendy davis | Jan 17 2016 17:36 utc | 9

This is a gesture to calm down the hysterical Saudis and the Israelis who just can't swallow that Iran has reintegrated the international community and will bloom at their expenses. It is just a bone...

Posted by: virgile | Jan 17 2016 17:54 utc | 10

Harry @ 5

Thank you.

Posted by: juliania | Jan 17 2016 17:59 utc | 11

This new sancitons is just Obama's way reassuring his "gulf allies" that he's got their back.. Nothing really changes...

Posted by: Zico | Jan 17 2016 18:14 utc | 12

Really quite revealing!

What are the odds of 3 people from such a group in this one role?

Posted by: PVP | Jan 17 2016 18:17 utc | 13

PressTV is showing a debate on the new sanctions:

Posted by: guest77 | Jan 17 2016 18:36 utc | 14

wendy davis says:

But yes, Hillary had called for new sanctions already yesterday

yeah, i noticed that as well...

ha. some kind of psychotic synchronicity, deep state endorsement for rodham c.

Posted by: john | Jan 17 2016 18:47 utc | 15

Again, when we look at the U.S. Deep State we see a split along several factions with no one faction dominating all the time. At present, sensible heads seem to be dominating since the failure of U.S. policies in Syria (on the one hand supporting ISIS, on the other fighting it) and Ukraine (which alienated Europe). These new unilateral sanctions are meaningless and were a bone to throw to the neocons and Israeli agents within gov't as well as a sensible measure to tone down the idiotic propaganda organs and the RP chest pounding. Everyone knows that Iran is no threat to anyone but a state willing to stand up for itself which is, in itself, a threat to the forces of darkness currently in retreat. I think it was the right thing to do--if Obama had not done that the howling would have been annoying. The sanctions will make no difference to Iran--this is strictly for show.

Posted by: Banger | Jan 17 2016 19:16 utc | 16

The check for $1.7 Billion that the US will soon send to Iran and the unfreezing of tens of Billions of Iranian dollars in US accounts will sooth the sting of these minor sanctions that Iran has already reacted to by accelerating their ballistic missile program. These sanctions coming the day after the spy swap were mostly for local US political consumption and election season positioning and will have no real effect on the Nuke deal.

Iran is still prohibited from testing this type of BM by UNSC resolution signed by Russia and China but we will have to wait and see what, if anything, they do in response to Iran's violation of that resolution.

Posted by: Wayoutwest | Jan 17 2016 19:18 utc | 17


"In 2002, he helped found DC Minyan, an Orthodox congregation based on egalitarian principles." high-larious.

Posted by: wendy davis | Jan 17 2016 19:55 utc | 18

Reuters | Mon Feb 16, 2015 7:17am EST

The EU's latest list of 19 people and nine organizations hit with asset freezes and travel bans was dominated by Ukrainian separatists with a handful of Russians.

The bloc went ahead with publishing the list despite a ceasefire taking effect over the weekend in eastern Ukraine.

The most eye-catching name on the list was that of Kobzon, a singer sometimes dubbed Russia's equivalent of Frank Sinatra.

Kobzon, 77, also a member of the state Duma or parliament, was listed because he "visited the so-called Donetsk People's Republic and during his visit made statements supporting separatists," according to the EU's Official Journal.


EU can be as petty as USA. Sanctions on singers?

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Jan 17 2016 21:04 utc | 19

Author was right by referring to Saddam Hussein and Qaddafi who were "arab springered" and attacked after they disposed of their weapons of mass destruction, suggesting that Iranian spring 2.0 is coming up.

But suggesting that Iranians were conned is an slight exaggeration since they supposedly gave up a nuke program that already failed and was abandoned 12 years ago, as the same Iranians were telling US all along. All of it was just a propaganda play on both sides, for their own political reasons of ruling parties in both countries.

US was to use Iran as a pawn in the anti-Russian crude oil game, again ignoring the true reason for oil falling price namely collapse of global demand and de-dollarization as admitted by Russia and China.

All of this has double and even triple bottom we can only guess about but underneath it all is preparation to global confrontation between west and east to come.

BLOOD ON THE STREET: Why is price of crude oil collapsing?

Posted by: Kalen | Jan 17 2016 21:24 utc | 20

I am so disappointed by this.

The new US Treasury sanctions themselves might not have that much impact. As someone (I forget who) said, the UN sanctions lifted under the Iran deal are lifted and the EU is going to keep it that way. The US stands alone with these new sanctions so far. Congress is trying to impose some more sanctions, including ones that would punish people who travel to Tehran to do business, barring them from the US or some such. EU is unlikely (I think) to go along with things like this too. Maybe a few countries would but again, we'll stand alone.

It just makes us look like a disingenuous, untrustworthy country. Not only that, it makes Obama look like a president who can't make up his mind. One day his administration implements the hard won Iran deal and the next day, practically the minute the prisoners crossed the Iranian border, his Treasury imposes new sanctions. Can't he make up his mind? It makes us look crazy. A lot of the world seems to be relieved to see this diplomacy, peaceful solution between the US, EU and Iran, and within hours it is tainted and the hostility resumes.

Lastly, I didn't realize last night when I heard the news that Hillary was calling for new sanctions that this was such a risky thing that could have sabotaged the prisoners' release. It was't until I saw some tweets from a guy who spent 2 years in an Iranian prison ranting (rightfully) about it that I realized what could have happened. Who does Hillary serve anyway? The American people including those prisoners being released or the Israelis and Saudis who still want this deal to be trashed? This was a game changer for me with respect to Hillary. Not that I was a big fan but this was a deal breaker.

Posted by: Joanne Leon | Jan 17 2016 21:24 utc | 21

US imposes sanctions on Iran for ballistic missile program

The statement said five Iranian citizens and a network of companies based in the United Arab Emirates and China were added to a US blacklist.

Well, it's the US and no one else. The festival of open markets should be otherwise progressing in Iran. Perhaps the Iranians can sanction right back, Boeing would seem an appropriate target. The US is applying ever weaker, unilateral sanctions and isolating itself ... holding the gun to its own head.

Maybe the Iranians and Chinese will announce a deal on ballistic missile parts when Xi blows into town.

Posted by: jfl | Jan 17 2016 21:26 utc | 22

Geld regiert die Welt
oder so was, hab ich gehört!

Posted by: Ejnar Ek | Jan 17 2016 21:36 utc | 23

Filthy stinking Saban and the rest of his 'crew'...note Szubin (Jew) issuing the statement from Treasury with barely concealed glee...

Saban might as well shit on his US passport. O that we could deport his traitor ass, along with the rest of the filthy stinking IsraHell- Firsters.

Posted by: don | Jan 17 2016 21:51 utc | 24

@20 joanne.. thanks for saying all that, but for those of us who lost faith in the usa a long time ago, it pains me to tell you - this is par fa the course for usa foreign policy for as long as i have been alive.. in answer to your question " Who does Hillary serve anyway? " that ought to be fairly apparent for even the most unobservant to know by now..

Posted by: james | Jan 17 2016 22:45 utc | 25

So that's the mechanism here? The congress has voted a law requiring the Treasury to sanction 'terrorism'? Weaponizing the treasury, installing a hair trigger that just goes off ... sometimes. Not when Da'esh fences stolen oil to Israel through Turkey to finance the slaughter of innocents, including Americans, in Syria, though, as pointed out in the preceding thread. Only when they're jabbed in the ass to do so does Yet Another 5th Colummist effect the deed in Treasury.

Yes the US is in reality halding the gun to its own head ... the gun wielded by the hirelings in the Congressional 5th column and 5th column emplacements in the executive. No doubt some are Jews, most are not. Most are good ole boys and girls ... on the take in Congress and the Executive, waiting for their turn of the revolving door.

A suitable response by Iran ... by any state so treated ... is to respond in turn. NO! to Boeing for their 400 planes would be a good start for the Iranians, citing the unreliability of the US as a supplier/servicer of ANYTHING as evidenced by this latest act. Iran needs to help steady the US' shaky hand so that it can blow its own brains out.

Posted by: jfl | Jan 17 2016 22:45 utc | 26

@ wayoutwest 17

If it's the 2010 Resolution of which you're speaking,it was to sunset as soon as Iran was in full compliance with the 'deal' agreed upon.

In a bragging email I just got from the White House, O said: "First, yesterday marked a milestone in preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Iran has now fulfilled key commitments under the nuclear deal."

Then more political rubbish, and claims that are likely untrue. It finished with an 'appeal' to Iranian youth (covert hint for regime change? who knows?) But even he said there is utterly no way for Iran to make a nuclear bomb now, but yanno: one of those badass missiles is inherentl capable of it! (Samantha Power)

Posted by: wendy davis | Jan 17 2016 22:47 utc | 27

Full of sh!t yank. Get a laxative upya.

If it is a sanction from the US alone, then it probably just mean that some more US businessmen will be surrendering their US passports.

Posted by: MadMax2 | Jan 17 2016 22:52 utc | 28

Harry @5

Thanks for posting that info as I'd read the Russian argument before, so the sanctions didn't make any sense other than yet another indication of the fragmentation in policy. Essentially, I see this as the exact opposite of saving face, or rather further confirmation of the outlaw nature of the US Empire. How many national leaders are looking at this action and shaking their heads? The majority I'd wager. Yet another policy failure. Interesting what Sanders said about Clinton on Meet the Press regarding negotiating with Iran.

Posted by: karlof1 | Jan 17 2016 23:15 utc | 29

Bone for the 'Deep-State'?

@Banger: Why does the 'Deep-State' need a bone? Who are they?

My belief and understanding is that the main 'Deep-State' power faction is the neocons. They essentially hold the reigns of power. Often what is now termed 'realists' are just neoliberals that prefer 'soft power' (economic and social justice) to achieve the same objectives - or as an initial means of weakening an opponent so that less military force is required. This is how we got "R2P" and "Lead from Behind" strategies.

WayoutWest: "will have no real effect on the Nuke deal"

This "bone" to neocon/hardliners has little to no effect today but memoralizes a "breach" that will likely be used in the future to point to a pattern of behavior that warrants action (of some sort).

<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>

The media is playing up the PEACE aspect of the Iran deal to stroke the Obama Administration. But the Iranian nuclear negotiations didn't result in a lasting 'peace' - only the elimination of an immediate casus belli.

I think USA+allies will continue to pressure Iran with carrots and sticks, hoping to guide Iran into the Western orbit. But if that doesn't bear fruit, all past 'transgressions', no matter how slight, will be used to paint Iran as a threat.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jan 17 2016 23:21 utc | 30


The UN only formally lifted sanctions yesterday because Iran had met the requirements of the Nuke deal, that did not include the Iranian ballistic missile program so I'm not sure your sunset theory is valid for that part of the resolution.

Someone earlier stated that Russia was claiming that the missile test didn't technically violate the UNSC resolution so they seem to think it is still in effect.

Posted by: Wayoutwest | Jan 17 2016 23:23 utc | 31

@24 james

In your state of condescending cynicism, maybe you've missed the fact that the Iran deal was the exception to the rule or perhaps you didn't notice the extraordinary lengths to which some powerful entities went to try to kill it and how many people (most) thought it would never be implemented.

The USA is not monolith, particularly the foreign policy makers. The whole place isn't stupid and arrogant, though it's hard to see that from the outside looking in, for sure. And even among the arrogant there are plenty of people who know that staying the course will be a disaster and the world has changed and we need to change with it.

I'm not sure if you noticed that a large portion of the populous right now is outright rejecting the political status quo. More than half of the voters rejected it in 2008 too, worked and voted for real change, but didn't end up getting it, for the most part, most likely because it was a con (but that might not explain all of it).

Also, I'm a big critic of my own country but I do wonder how any other country would behave if given the same huge advantages that the US enjoyed post-WWII while also sitting between two big oceans and other natural geographical gifts. That's not an excuse. Just a thought.

But alas, what would I do without people like you to 'splain my own country to me.

Posted by: Joanne Leon | Jan 17 2016 23:29 utc | 32

I think the US couldn't stand that Iran took those americans prisoner. People in the US simply were forced to make a tough stance. And in november of this year there're new presidential elections in the US. Coincedence ? Far from !!!!

Posted by: Willy2 | Jan 17 2016 23:50 utc | 33

I can't say for certain without digging into the resolution, wayouwest; it would be a fool's errand, I reckon, as the US decides what it says.

But the State Department's Twitter club is full of fun communications, including this one I did love dearly. Retweeted:

Posted by: wendy davis | Jan 17 2016 23:52 utc | 34

Wish I could either type or read...or both. Sorry for all the mistakes.

Posted by: wendy davis | Jan 17 2016 23:53 utc | 35

Iran backed militias kidnap Americans in Iraq?">">

Posted by: Tircuit | Jan 17 2016 23:54 utc | 36

No, Obama does want to improve relationship with Iran but he can't control of what A LOT OF other forces inside the US are doing & want.

Posted by: Willy2 | Jan 17 2016 23:56 utc | 37

To be clear: The linked article in 35 is suspect and fits the theme here. And I have to figure out how to embed links. Sorry! First post.

Posted by: Tircuit | Jan 18 2016 0:00 utc | 38

Obomba might want a lot of things, but also wants so hard to please everyone...comes off looking weak, a tool - someone who can't make up his mind as Joanne @20 said. He'd get a lot more respect, even from the right, if he'd show a bit more spine instead of bending over for everyone like the town bike.

Posted by: MadMax2 | Jan 18 2016 0:25 utc | 39

This Iran canard is totally without any basis in reality. Iran, Syria, Russia have a mutual defense pact. An attack on one is an attack on all. So in essence Iran and Syria for that matter are protected under Russiaq's offensive/;defensive nuclear umbrella.

Posted by: Alberto | Jan 18 2016 0:32 utc | 40

Posted by: Zico | Jan 17, 2016 1:14:47 PM | 12

Nothing really changes...

Really? US and its lapdog got everything while Iran didn't even get crumbs. Here what happens:

Obomo freed Israel's Jonathan Pollard, former U.S. intelligence agent convicted of spying for Israel. Even Dubya unwilling to freed him for any reasons. Saudi continue mass murder in Yemen and beheaded opponents at will. In Gaza and West banks stone throwing kids are shots at or killed , houses demolition. More new SETTLEMENTS being built and billions in aids and weapons. Palestinians crops destroy - sprayed and land grabs most likely Agent Orange and with Caterpillar tractors. Still remember millions acres deforestation in Laos and Vietnam in the 70's, people still sufferings from birth defects beside missing limps from unexploded bombs.

Boeing and Airbus licking and gleaming for billions dollars worth of aircraft orders after years of sanctions - most of Iran aircraft are not airworthiness without spares, support and etc. Shell, BP, Eni SpA were ready even before sanctions end. I can continue endlessly including Turkey........

How dare you said Nothing really changes I'm not attacking you. :-)

I am watching RT (Russia Today) Bernie Sanders snippets video while typing this comment... Wall Street greeds, free education up to college level, political revolutions. Sound exactly like Obomo in 2008 and 2012. I have never not voted for him.

Fren, there will be change, there will be life after 2016 and Bernie Sanders will fuck us even harder than the Repug. I an’t Repug by any imagination, if you thinking...

Posted by: Jack Smith | Jan 18 2016 1:13 utc | 41

How much Iranian business would have gone to the United States? Particularly in respect of the ballistic missile programme? Most of, if not all the technology and materials are available elsewhere. So Iran can buy what it needs elsewhere and the only people to lose out are American businesses. How long will the CEOs of those business remain quiet? I don't know but it wouldn't surprise me if they are already talking to their political representatives complaining about these sanctions are giving their competitors an "unfair" advantage.

Posted by: blowback | Jan 18 2016 1:43 utc | 42

Iran is silent about new sanctions, I guess leadership deciding whats the appropriate response.

One area where Iran could hurt US is Boeing, as mentioned by jfl. Personally in Iran's place I would phrase it like that "we will buy your planes in one condition, if you transfer know-how and technology to Iran so we would be able to fully repair Boeings, otherwise there is no point of buying your planes since US is notoriously unreliable and spare parts can be cut off at any time." If Boeing agrees, it would be a huge step forward for Iran's aviation industry, if not - "Airbus will serve us just fine, cya".

Russia and China are investing tens of billions to produce Boeing/Airbus analogues, hopefully sometime in the future Iran wont have to rely on the West for planes at all.

Another important area - military jets. In Iran's place I would approach Russia and offer similar deal as they had with India to co-design and manufacture Sukhoi PAK FA (T-50). Russia needs money, and Iran is way more rich than India, and in dire need of modern jets.

Posted by: Harry | Jan 18 2016 1:51 utc | 43

@41 The biggest supplier of missile technology to Iran is North Korea. The US may want to shut that connection down completely.

Posted by: dh | Jan 18 2016 2:13 utc | 44

If Obama, as a man, were enabled by his handlers to enjoy any autonomy at all, he wouldn't be making an ass of himself at every turn. Dems are Repubs are like the Washington Generals and The Harlem Globetrotters. Each plays its role - Weak, effeminate Dems (mind all the Israeli Dual Citizens in the Party) vs. Loudmouthed Ham-fisted Neanderthals.

All for our entertainment as the Deep State directs their theatrics as it works both covertly and overtly though these craven tools.

Posted by: fast freddy | Jan 18 2016 3:16 utc | 45

Democratic debate tonight:
Sanders: "Assad has used chemical weapons on his own people."

Posted by: okie farmer | Jan 18 2016 3:45 utc | 46

Political theater gets even worse in an election year. But considering that the US has walked back from very long standing policy with regard to Iran, a little face-saving bluster is to be expected. Certainly the Iranians expected it.

And as others have clearly pointed out here, the sanctions lifted were UN sanctions. The sanctions now imposed are US sanctions. There is, quite literally, a world of difference between the two.

Look how much fun Russia has had with the US/EU sanctions. And look how the Iranians are challenging the US navy right now, in this conference with Iranian media heads last night by IRGC Navy Commander Rear Admiral Ali Fadavi.

He repeatedly called the US Navy's actions during the detention of the marines amateurish and unprofessional. He said in incredibly clear terms that Iran was ready - waiting on orders - to sink every US ship in its territorial waters.

Iran has long banned US ships from its waters. The US acted with bravado, Iran warned it to back off. Next time the US ships all go to the bottom of the ocean. "The Americans have undertaken not to repeat such mistakes," said the official announcement, adding that the Americans had extended an apology.

Commander: US Navy's Amateur Behavior Could Send All Its Warships Deep Down Persian Gulf Waters

Posted by: Grieved | Jan 18 2016 4:04 utc | 47


Classic one-liner from Zloomberg News, on MLK Day:
Year of the Monkey Could Mean a Chinese Baby Boom!

You can almost hear The 1% stifling their laughter
at today's Oxfam report that The 1% own more than
all of the rest of the monkeys on earth, together.

Soon all of the monkeys will be credit-debt slaves,
then the velvet glove will come off the Iron Claw.
Soon big rewards for collaborator monkeys to serve
the dish on their fellow monkeys, to the Blue Team.
Soon the Acting Under Secretary for Terrorism and
Financial Intelligence will recommend death camps.

You can't have terrorism if bad monkeys are dead.
Good monkey, whatever you do, don't stop shopping!

(I may not get there with you, my Deep State embed
cell app will now advise me that 'the webcam can't
capture your eyes, please run repair app', 3-2-1...)

Posted by: Chipnik | Jan 18 2016 7:41 utc | 48


They are all bought and sold to Zion (Shaytan).
Code word: Operation Triumphal Exceptionalism

Even Obama was forced to state the exceptionazi
meme of 'bmobs and flags and truth in the night':

Hillary is owned by Zio, kept on a short leash.
Sanders was born Zio and will always serve Zio.
Trump is owned and is financed by the Head Zio.
Rubio's campaign theme is New American Century.
Cruz is a Crypto-Zio selling the Cold War memes.

"We won, you lost. It's just business, get over it."

But they will never own our souls.

Posted by: Chipnik | Jan 18 2016 7:54 utc | 49


Airliners are like throwaway Bic shavers. The money is in long-haul international passenger:mile revenues as against cost of JP-5 aviation fuel futures options. Like making sausage.
FAA is the sole arbiter of airframe worthiness, especially necessary for profitable overseas flights to centralized air hubs like Schiphol. No airframe certs, no gates, as simple as that.
And Iran has no JP-5 refineries.
No gates, no gas, no go, Joe!

Posted by: Chipnik | Jan 18 2016 8:12 utc | 50

IIRC Clinton called for sanctions 2 days ago. Coincidence? Nah...

Posted by: V. Arnold | Jan 18 2016 8:38 utc | 51


H8 the game, not the player!

The Zionists have been playing sequential bait-and-switch since before the 1967 War.

The Ayatollahs, of all people, should recognize the utter perfidy of the Zionists.

"Lay down your weapons and swear allegiance to Zion, before we begin to negotiate."

The Zionists steal the taxes owed to Palestinians, they steal their lands, even the oil
under their sands. Israel has a 'right' to only 50% of the historical lands of Palestine
under the 1948 British Mandate and Palestinian exodus, also known as the Nakba, but
today, Zion holds more than 3/4ths, as well as Jerusalem, which was to remain a free
secular City-State. That's why you never give Zionists an inch.

The Zionists told Saddam disarm, or we will attack. Saddam disarmed and the Zionists immediately
attacked, murdering not only Saddam and his "seed" in some malevolent Dark Ages act but also
slaughtered 1,000,000 Iraqis, looted some 700 tons of gold bullion and all their antiquities,
destroyed all their land titles, and imposed a Zionist Central Bank.

Again with Ghaddafi.

Again with Assad. They tried anyway.

Again with Ukraine.

These Zionist monsters are Great Shaytan, "the liar". Everyone in the world knows that now, even
the real Sephardim Sons of David, who are applying to Spain for political refugee status.

Yet the Ayatollahs signed the papers, gave up their U235, plugged their breeder reactor with
concrete, and gave the Zionists and especially the Likud, an immense political victory.

"Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, uhh, ain't never gonna be fooled no'more!"

And now, like the monsters (former Soviet mobsters) they are, Zion will turn the knife some more.

You can't boycott Israel, Bibi was only re-elected by the 26% of Israelis who are former Soviets!
You can't reform their system, it's a captive, cancerous Mafiocracy. It's taken over US Congress,
clapping for Bibi longer than any US president, clapping until their hands bled, for Christ sake!

"We won, you lost. It's just business, get over it!"

Posted by: Chipnik | Jan 18 2016 10:09 utc | 52

@51 - you write the truth very well and clear.

Posted by: doveman | Jan 18 2016 11:32 utc | 53

Vicktoria Nuland is meeting her Russian counterpart in Kalingrad to discuss Minsk. There is talk of sanctions being lifted on Russia. My guess the deal Nuland is offering - sell out Donbass and we will lift sanctions.

Posted by: Yonatan | Jan 18 2016 12:28 utc | 54

Yonatan | Jan 18, 2016 7:28:09 AM | 53

The sanctions against Russia are inconvenient, but certainly not serious; the sanctions hurt Europe far more than Russia. Russia is far from being isolated. Nuland is on a fool's errand, Imo.
If I have understood the Donbass situation; Russia will not capitulate. Why would it? Russia's Putin is in the drivers seat.

Posted by: V. Arnold | Jan 18 2016 12:43 utc | 55

OT - what right does a huge, profit-hungry, civil liberties-rending mega corporation like Google have to adorn their product with and image of the greatest martyred fighter for peace and justice the US has ever known, MLK Jr.?

Posted by: guest77 | Jan 18 2016 14:13 utc | 56

@45 more proof Sanders is as hawkish as any when it comes to the Middle East. And a liar too. No reason to repeat that lie unless you're wanting to continue the regime change game that has already destroyed Syria and killed a quarter million of its people. And sent the rest pouring into Europe to watch their children die on the way for the great chance to face Europe's Nazis - having just fled from their own version in al Qaeda/al Nusra/ISIS.

Posted by: guest77 | Jan 18 2016 14:18 utc | 57

Ah yes, when the USSR was around, people screamed it was anti-semitic, and the JDL bombed and terrorized them where they could, and US Cold War historical fraudsters had a field day adding anti-semitism to the laundry list of "Stalin Crimes". Now that the USSR is gone, you have people dredging up old Nazi blather about how the USSR was some kind of Zionist entity? Its horseshit. The USSR and the Eastern Bloc were some of the only countries to recognize Palestine and support the Palestinian people - certainly none in the West did (and still can't). The Soviets were the foremost in helping the Arabs - Soviet pilots died defending Egypt.

It's just good ol' fashioned anti-Communism anyway you can get it - truth takes a back seat to that, and always has.

Posted by: guest77 | Jan 18 2016 14:27 utc | 58

Whatever those scumbags voting for that bloody-soaked, free-marketeer Bibi are - its got fuckall to do with the USSR now 25 years gone.

Posted by: guest77 | Jan 18 2016 14:38 utc | 59

Sanctions on Iran were lifted on Saturday (16.01.'16.)

On the same day (i.e. the decision was on the agenda and had a precise date), oil cos. arrived in Teheran, including the directors of Shell and Total. (That is was the top brass is not stated in this article.) Banks are wary for now but will no doubt follow soon.

On Sunday, the long awaited US-Iran prisoner exchange took place, ‘facilitated by Switzerland’, the Iran prisoners landed here. The press here is happy because Obama thanked Switzerland. (MSM article in F.) I.e. this was also planned long ago (the negotiations have been going on for about a year) to happen right after Saturday.

Iran ‘expects’ 8% growth next year. Fiscal reforms will be coming up (targetting ‘State’ cos. - some 40% or more of the economy is controlled by the mullahs.)

Strangely, Iran is a case of the lifting of sanctions (which implies slapping sanctions on in first place) being successful, purely from a liberal / capitalistic, globalisation, pov.

Naturally, all along the public had to be fooled it was about nukes, dire threats, etc.

What we see here as well is fissures in the US oligarchy (see Banger at 16), and that the US twitchy sanctions impulse continues to wiggle feebly after it is decapitated. Though of course the US can unilaterally do as it likes.

Posted by: Noirette | Jan 18 2016 15:19 utc | 60

What we see here as well is fissures in the US oligarchy (see Banger at 16), and that the US twitchy sanctions impulse continues to wiggle feebly after it is decapitated. Though of course the US can unilaterally do as it likes.
Posted by: Noirette | Jan 18, 2016 10:19:43 AM | 59

Then again, maybe not. The agreement is between Iran and the P5 + 1 (Russia, China, USA, Fr, UK + Germany. So it's not at all clear that Obama discussed his (and Bibi's) missile sanctions with the 4 + 1 to get their approval (to make it a legal demand) before shooting his mouth off/ telling Treasury shoot it off for him.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jan 18 2016 16:28 utc | 61

A 95 year old German CC camp medic to go on trial for German govt. actions.
The older the guy,the harder he falls?
Merkel? sucks.
Yes,Chip is our resident realist,but I hope his crystal ball is a little faulty,as the future he foretells is just too nihilist.
I'm whistling in the dark.

Posted by: dahoit | Jan 18 2016 17:01 utc | 62

Hoarse, yes, ok. at 61.

here a bit more on this issue.

Iran president: Only Israel, US extremists object to nuke deal. Lowell Sun 17 jan.

Netanyahu addressed his Cabinet (Jan 17.. ) For Netanyahu however, this week is different. The day before his address, the US and the EU lifted their sanctions against Iran. Netanyahu (…) built his .. career on (…) -- he recognized the existential threat Iran poses to Israel. And yet in his brief remarks to the cabinet about Iran, it was as if nothing had changed.

this site seem to be a spin off of Stratfor? (idk)

Posted by: Noirette | Jan 18 2016 17:40 utc | 63

@ #63 Noirette.
Bibi has a big problem. The Iran deal renders Israel irrelevant. If he keeps making anti-Iran noises it'll not only be widely perceived as "missing a wonderful opportunity to shut up", he also runs the risk of of reminding the "International Community" that the ME won't be a Nuke-free zone until Israel's Nukes(?) are decommissioned.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jan 18 2016 20:14 utc | 64

@26 I've been trying to figure out the same thing. Why does the treasury department have the authority to sanction a sovereign state's acquisition of weapons that aren't prohibited by any international treaty or convention? There's something in the original Iran sanctions about "weapons of mass destruction" and since that's a term without a definition, I suppose any weapon is a WMD? I'm very confused.

Posted by: Cresty | Jan 19 2016 4:19 utc | 65

New sanctions, but these may not be directly targeted at Iran.

BBC journalist stopped from flying to US over UK-Iranian nationality

The law will have dramatic consequences for Iran – particularly its tourism industry – at a time when it is reintegrating into the international community following the landmark nuclear agreement. “Europeans who want to visit Iran for tourism purposes or European companies who want to do business in Iran now have to be worried about their travel to the US. Which EU businessman is prepared to jeopardise his or her ability to travel to the US by going to Iran?” asked one commentator who wished to remain anonymous.

The amendments passed last month affect citizens of 38 countries who could previously visit the US for up to 90 days without a visa if they had visited Iran, Iraq, Syria and Sudan in the past five years. Dual citizens from the four countries would not be able to travel to the US without a visa even if they were citizens of one of these 38 countries.

Posted by: Petri Krohn | Jan 20 2016 2:01 utc | 66

The comments to this entry are closed.