|
Iran Fends Off Childish New Sanction Threats
Last years agreement over Iran's nuclear program could have cleared the way to better relations between the U.S. and Iran. Better relation could lead to cooperation in solving conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Yemen.
But the U.S. is not willing to go there. It is trying to keep Iran hostile even with the nuclear issue solved.
Just follow recent headlines:
Dec 9 – US official: Iran tested another ballistic missile in Nov.
The test occurred Nov. 21, according to the official, coming on top of an Oct. 10 test Iran confirmed at the time.
Dec 28 – Iran ships 25,000lb of low-enriched uranium to Russia as part of nuclear deal
“I am pleased to report that we have seen important indications of significant progress towards Iran completing its key nuclear commitments under the deal,” the US secretary of state, John Kerry, said.
Dec 30 – U.S. preparing missile sanctions against Iran
Dec 30 – US says Iran launched 'provocative' rocket test near ships
Iran fulfills the nuclear deal and ships out enriched Uranium. It thereby gives away its meager means to even produce one nuclear weapon. This is immediately followed by a hostile move from the U.S. together with some nonsense propaganda over small fireworks in the Gulf, the Persian Gulf.
Iran immediately reacted to these crazy moves.
Dec 31 – Iran's IRGC denies firing rockets near U.S. warship in Persian Gulf
Dec 31 – Iran Denounces U.S. Sanctions Over Missiles, Saying It Will Build More
Israel, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Pakistan and the U.S. all have ballistic missiles that can hit Iran. Why should Iran not have a capability to deter them with its own ballistic missile force? Given that Iran has no nuclear weapons program there is no sound reason to deny it conventional missile capabilities. China, Russia and the Europeans accept that and will prevent any UN sanctions over the issue.
Only after Iran made it clear that it will not take part in the childish games the Obama administration wanted to play did the administration retract.
Jan 1 – White House Said To Delay Sanctions On Iran After Tehran Retaliates
Duh! Why make the threat in the first place when it was clear from the onset that it would be a bad move?
Tally this up as other own goal the Obama administration inflicted onto itself.
Who came up with the crazy idea of sanctioning Iran over harmless ballistic missile tests? Why do this at a time, just after Iran shipped out its Uranium, that make it look like intended sabotage of the nuclear deal? The deal with Iran is the only major foreign policy success the Obama administration ever had. Why endanger this legacy?
It will be interesting to read and compare the self serving memoirs of Obama administration officials when their time in office is over. My perception is that Obama is completely disinterested in policies. That Susan Rice, his National Security Adviser, has the retarded mindset of a junior highschool brat. That the neolibcons at the State Department run circles around a hapless John Kerry. And that the Pentagon, CentCom and the CIA are all running the own tunnel vision policies without any regard of a bigger national strategy.
Unfortunately there is little hop that the next administration will be any better.
fast freddy, please stop posting ignorance about WTC7. Did you miss the fact that firemen were predicting WTC7 would collapse due to the fires? https://youtu.be/J9kSO-w4sFM?t=6m2s
“I then walked down a couple of blocks back to the site. We were north of the Winter Garden at that point. It might have been—it was Vesey Street. We walked all the way back down to Vesey Street. There was a big discussion going on at that point about *pulling all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center* . Chief Nigro didn’t feel it was worth taking the slightest chance of somebody else getting injured. So at that point we made a decision to take all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center because there was a potential for collapse.”
Q. “It was on fire, correct, Captain?”
A. “Yes, it was on fire at that time. Then they said it suffered some form of structural damage. These things were going on at the same time. The fact that we thought we found Ganci and Feehan and his place at 7 World Trade Center. Made the decision to back
everybody away, took all the units and moved them all the way back toward North End Avenue, which is as far I guess west as you could get on Vesey Street, to keep them out of the way.” – Captain Ray Goldbach http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Goldbach_Ray.txt
You can here a fireman say pull in this video “that’s why the pulled everyone outa here” : https://youtu.be/tK9MmoVaO5U?t=2m38s
“The biggest decision we had to make on the first day was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story building heavily involved in fire. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building’s integrity was in serious doubt.
I issued the orders *to pull back the firefighters* and define the collapse zone. It was a critical decision; we could not lose any more firefighters. It took a lot of time to pull everyone out, given the emotionalism of the day, communications difficulties, and the collapse terrain. – FDNY Chief of Department Daniel Nigro, Report from the Chief of Department, Fire Engineering, 9/2002
“The major concern at that time at that particular location was number Seven, building number seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. When it fell, it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors across the façade on Vesey Street. We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing. So for the next five or six hours we kept firefighters from working anywhere near that building, which included the whole north side of the World Trade Center complex. Eventually around 5:00 or a little after, building number seven came down.” – Chief Frank Fellini
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Fellini_Frank.txt
“And 7 World Trade was burning up at the time. We could see it. There was concern. I had gone up to take a look at it, because I knew that the telephone company building, which is 140 West Street, was next to 7 World Trade Center, and there was a concern that if 7 World Trade Center came down, what would happen to this building? We went in there, we checked it out. There were some people in there. We made them evacuate and I went in the back to see what was happening. The fire at 7 World Trade was working its way from the front of the building northbound to the back of the building. There was no way there could be water put on it, because there was no water in the area. I went back and I reminded whoever the chief was, I don’tknow if it was Chief McKavanagh or Chief Blaich, that with 7 World Trade Center in danger of collapsing, you had to be careful, because Con Edison had big transformers in the back that supplied the lower half of Manhattan. …when I was coming back somewhere around I think it was 5:00 o’clock, 6:00 o’clock, 7 World Trade Center came down.” Firefighter Eugene Kelty http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/NYT9-11AccountsAnalysis/txt/9110261.txt
“But they weren’t letting guys too close. At this point Seven World Trade Center was going heavy, and they weren’t letting anybody get too close. Everybody was expecting that to come down. We hung out for hours…I remember later on in the day it was getting close that they were more concerned about seven coming down. We had no idea what 20was going on on the east side. We were all on our side. On the west side it was pretty clear. The wind was blowing from west to east I believe. I remember later on in the day as we were waiting for seven to come down they kept backing us up Vesey, almost a full block. They were concerned about seven coming down, and they kept changing us, establishing a collapse zone and backing us up.
… The whole time while we were waiting—there were hours that went by. Seven came down after 5 in the afternoon.” – Firefighter Vincent Massa 9110222 http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110222.PDF
firemen understand there is a collapse threat under certain conditions. Firemen have known buildings can collapse due to fires. Firehouse Magazine from Sept. 1998 explained that fact clearly: “Class 1 (fire-resistive) buildings typical of high-rise construction usually are designated as having three- or four-hour fire resistance ratings. In the past, that was taken to mean that they would never be a serious collapse threat. While this is usually the case in the completed structures, it is not a guarantee, particularly in the steel-framed high-rise that relies on some type of spray-on or membrane fireproofing to protect the steel. The 1 Meridian Plaza fire in Philadelphia proved that these can be severe dangers under the wrong set of circumstances.”
https://web.archive.org/web/19991104023940/http://www.firehouse.com/magazine/archives/1998/September/tactics.html
. Fires HAVE caused steel framed buildings to collapse. The Kader toy factory fire is an example. The thing you need to understand is that people like Eric Hufschmid are just ignorant and that they didn’t know what they were talking about when the declared “fires can’t do that.” And as I showed you, firemen know what firs can do to steel framed buildings as the Firehouse Magazine from Sept. 1998 explained. Hufschmid was just spreading ignorance as the historic example of Sherman’s Neckties shows http://youtu.be/Drsgs6-3Qlg
“A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building’s integrity was in serious doubt.” How in the world do you continue to believe what you do given that fact? As I said, firemen know what fire can do to steel. It is unreal that this BS conspiracy crap has gone on for so long. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7rj5UQvlWw
The problem is Eric Hufschmid thought he was being clever when he looked up the MELTING point of steel not realizing that the steel didn’t have to melt for it to weaken. Hufschmid was just spreading ignorance as the historic example of Sherman’s Neckties shows http://youtu.be/Drsgs6-3Qlg And as I told you, firemen have know that fires pose a collapse threat to these types of buildings “particularly in the steel-framed high-rise that relies on some type of spray-on or membrane fireproofing to protect the steel.” as I quoted Firehouse Magazine from Sept. 1998,
And for the life of me I don’t get why you guys think a building near the twin towers would also be a target. It caught on fire, due to the collapse of the towers the sprinkler system was deprived of water on several floors due to water lines being severed from the collapse of the WTC. Firemen were expecting WTC7 to collapse for goodness sakes, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bf7Z_I1CAZ4 and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7rj5UQvlWw
Fires did cause several floors to collapse within WTC5, so the notion that fires can’t undermine the structural integrity of steel framed buildings is absurd. Or are we expected to believe that secret agents targeted 4 floors within WTC5 too? https://sites.google.com/site/911conspiracydebunked/wtc-5
WTC7 was just building near the targeted towers, it doesn’t make sense to think that someone target building 7. Stubborning clinging to the ignorant notion that “fires couldn’t do that” (in spite of the fact that firemen have written about the collapse threat given the very same spray on fireproofing: “Class 1 (fire-resistive) buildings typical of high-rise construction usually are designated as having three- or four-hour fire resistance ratings. In the past, that was taken to mean that they would never be a serious collapse threat. While this is usually the case in the completed structures, it is not a guarantee, particularly in the steel-framed high-rise that relies on some type of spray-on or membrane fireproofing to protect the steel. The 1 Meridian Plaza fire in Philadelphia proved that these can be severe dangers under the wrong set of circumstances.” )
the so called truthers have rationalized WTC7, a building that was just near the targeted towers, as a target itself! That doesn’t even make sense. http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2013/10/bob-building-7-was-just-building-near.html
The mastermind of the 9/11 attacks has explained why the twin towers were targeted: “Sheikh Mohammed said that the purpose of the attack on the Twin Towers was to “wake the American people up.” Sheikh Mohammed said that if the target would have been strictly military or government, the American people would not focus on the atrocities that America is committing by supporting Israel against the Palestinian people and America’s self-serving foreign policy that corrupts Arab governments and leads to further exploitation of the Arab/Muslim peoples.”
http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-911-misdirection-away-from-why-and.html
Posted by: Tom Murphy | Jan 2 2016 1:19 utc | 62
Several reasons for the US to continue the sanctions game against Iran, but the overall rationale is to avoid even a semblance of “normalization” in the US-Iran relations. The neo-con-zio-nazis inside the administration have a clear goal in mind, that is to block at all cost any rapprochement from this administration toward Iran that could become part of Obama’s “legacy,” as it happened with Cuba.
Therefore, they will launch this sanctions “trial balloons” now and then, intended to keep Iran on its toes, changing the goals posts at whim, hoping to get Iran off balance and/or creating momentum for sanctions inside the administration. Problem for the neo-con-nazis is Iran has already taken their measure/read their game plan, and Iran’s new position as a Russian ally, S-300s and all, makes Iran very aware of its newly gained power to allow for any threats, sanctions or otherwise, to have any effect on their geopolitical standing.
The new threat on sanctions bluffing comes right before preparations to lift sanctions on Iran under the nuclear agreement negotiated by the P5+1, which Iran is fulfilling as b pointed out above. The refusal to let Iran off the hook has many interests behind, among them the “Axis of Evil” (Ankara, Jerusalem and Riyadh), or the “Pentagram of Evil” (US, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Israel and Qatar), as per D@3 the former, and Anunnaki@10 the latter.
Iran has had plenty of time living under sanctions to plan their future strategic goals for the next 50 years or so, and the lifting of sanctions would turn Iran into an economic powerhouse in the region, a development Iran’s enemies would like to block by any means necessary. Unfortunately for them, it is too late for their game plan to have any success. Iran got from under their “Bomb Iran!” claws thanks to their old Persian wisdom, with a little help from their friends, Russia and China, and the vested interest of some members of the P5+1, i.e. Germany, France, and the UK to a lesser degree.
Germany was Iran’s biggest trading partner pre-sanctions, and France is looking forward to return and take a piece of the $185 billion dollars oil and gas business plan Iran is hoping to develop by 2022. European companies are hovering over Iran’s post-sanction period like birds of prey; however, and unfortunately for US companies, thanks to the neo-con-zio-nazis all-or-nothing militaristic policies, doing business with Iran will not be possible for the time being.
The administration “reversal” on the threat of US sanctions is only temporary, we will hear more about sanctions from the whorehouse (US Congress) during all of January, and from the usual suspects inside the administration whose job is to keep the pressure on Iran, and to spoil any attempts at normalizing relations. It will be too little too late, strategically they have been defeated, and Iran is more than ready to fly into the future as a new power in the Eurasian giant marketplace, and as one of the main stations of the Silk Road Economic Belt, the Chinese “One Road, One Belt” project.
Bye-bye, neo-con-zio-nazis, you’re ready for the trash heap of history.
Posted by: Lone Wolf | Jan 2 2016 4:44 utc | 68
Unfortunately, Trump is not only hated by the establishment and by the MSM, but also by most left-wing sympathizers.
Posted by: From The Hague | Jan 1, 2016 10:42:26 AM | 13
In my opinion Trump is a blowhard who occasionally voices something sensible, but some stuff was absolutely toxic, most notably, “Mexican rapist, some of whom are surely good people”, the totally ban foreign Muslim from entering USA, and quite notably, to censor the internet like they do it in China, Iran etc. (although he would ask Bill Gates for advise). So, without hate and sadly, I would rather have Hillary or Sanders, whichever comes first. That said, I appreciated that he distanced himself from demanding Assad removal, from confronting Russia as an enemy, and observed that US economy needs some degree of protectionism. But overall, he is the type of egomaniac who hardly cares what he says, so it is hard to treat those nuggets seriously. Still, GOP field number two, Cruz, proposes to “bomb until the sand glows”, the top establishment candidate, Rubio, regurgitates neocon points, former top candidate, Carson, is amiably insane, “Joseph stored grain in pyramids”.
By the way of difference, Bernie Sanders said few things that were absolutely chilling to me, “We should give a larger role to our regional allies like Saudi Arabia”, but in the larger context, he is mostly harmless, unlike Trump. And Hillary is like Obama, moderate mayhem which is at least rather predictable. Still, sad that in US politics she is attacked for a rather meaningless e-mail issues and not for “We Came, We Saw, He Died!”
Posted by: Piotr Berman | Jan 2 2016 12:24 utc | 83
|
