Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
January 23, 2018

"Calls Upon" Trickery - How Europe Cheats On Iran's Nuclear Agreement

[An addition to the original piece below was added here: Why Europe Must Reject U.S. Blackmail Over Iran's Nuclear Agreement - An Update]

The Trump administration wants to abolish the nuclear agreement with Iran. The big European countries want to keep the formal agreement but are actively looking for other reasons, specifically Iran's ballistic missiles, to put new sanctions on Iran. A detailed look into the issue reveals that those European countries are willfully misreading the relevant UN resolutions and mislead the public about their real motivations.

Elijah Magnier just published an excellent piece on the history of U.S. attempts to restrict Iran in the Middle East and to again put it again under its tutelage. He touches on the nuclear deal with Iran and the Trump administration attempts to abolish it. The deal was cosigned by three European countries, the United Kingdom, France and Germany, as well as by Russia and China. Magnier writes:

Iran will not re-negotiate the nuclear deal and relies on Europe to stand firm, confirming its signature and commitment. Europe is in need of Iran because the Islamic Republic is part of the continent’s national security and an advanced guard against terrorism. Europe has had enough of wars [... .]

[The] Iranians and their allies are the partners Europe is looking for, ready to stand back from the US, that faraway continent that is less vulnerable than nearby Europe to terrorism and terrorists.

That assessment of the European position is wrong.

  1. The European governments care about terrorism just as much as the U.S. government does - which means they do not care at all. Remember that the war on Libya, with the help of Qatari paid Takfiris of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, was cooked up by the French President Sarkozy and the Britain Prime Minister Cameron a full year before it happened. Ghaddafi was killed, Libya drowned in blood and terrorism thrived. The blow back came in May 2017 when a Libyan Takfiri blew himself up and killed more than 20 people in Manchester UK. No one was held responsible. Instead the Europeans repeat the same scheme in Syria and are still supporting the terrorist assaults against the legitimate Syrian government.
  2. These Europeans want Iran back under a strict sanction regime just like the U.S. wants it. They Europeans do not want to formally break the nuclear agreement. (They might fear that some companies would file for indemnity.) But they are actively looking for ways to circumvent it. They want to provoke Iran into breaking the agreement by claiming that Iran's ballistic missile program is in violation of the nuclear agreement and the relevant UN resolutions. If they use the issue to apply unilateral sanctions or to "snap back" old ones, Iran has little choice but to declare the agreement null and void.


Some relevant headlines:

These European countries say they are under pressure from Trump to offer something and are therefore taking up the ballistic missile issue:

The strategy could include threatening Iran with targeted economic sanctions if it does not agree to curtail its ballistic weapons arsenal, which the West believes contains longer-range missiles potentially capable of carrying nuclear warheads.

But why would anyone believe that Trump would not just take whatever Europeans offer and simply continue on his path. If Trump wants to break the nuclear agreement the Europeans should let him do so and not risk to add to the damage.

Moreover - the claim that these Europeans are moving against Iran's ballistic missiles because of Trump is deeply dishonest. The same European countries started their campaign about the alleged Iranian ballistic missile violation under then President Obama. As DW reported on March 30 2016(!):

The United States and its European allies have accused Iran of defying a UN Security Council resolution by launching nuclear-capable missiles.

The US, Britain, France and Germany leveled the charges Tuesday in a joint letter addressed to Spain's UN ambassador and UN chief Ban Ki-moon. In the letter, US and European officials said Iran's recent ballistic tests involved missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons and were "in defiance of" council resolution 2231, adopted last July.

Iran had launched missiles that were "inherently capable of delivering nuclear weapons," the letter said. It called on the Security Council to discuss appropriate responses to Tehran's failure to comply with its obligations.

That 2016 letter itself was based on two lies. As discussed in detail below the UNSC Resolution 2231 (2015) does NOT prohibit any ballistic missile activities in Iran. It especially does NOT prohibit missiles "inherently capable of delivering nuclear weapons". It does not even "demand" such. Iran acted as much "in defiance" as someone who rejects an "obligation" to "suck on this" (vid).

As DW correctly noted:

Council diplomats said the case for new UN sanctions on Iran was weak. Moreover, Western officials said that although the launches went against 2231, they were not a violation of the core nuclear agreement ...
Diplomats say key powers agree the resolution's language is not legally binding and cannot be enforced through the use of sanctions or military force. But Western nations view the language as a ban and say Iran has a political obligation to comply.

Iran denies its missiles are able to carry nuclear weapons ...
[A] rebuke from the Security Council could provide a legal framework for the US and European countries to consider new sanctions against Iran, according to Western diplomats. France has also suggested there could be unilateral European sanctions over Iran's missile launches.

The European claim now that they want to press Iran on ballistic missiles to prevent Trump from ripping the nuclear agreement apart. This claim is obviously false. The same three Europeans attempted to press Iran on ballistic missiles, in circumvention of the nuclear deal, way before anyone but Trump himself dreamed that he might become President of the United States.

Iran's Ballistic Missile Program

Iran has sensible reasons to have a ballistic missile force. During the Iraq-Iran war the Iraqi army launched the War of the Cities on Iran. Five large waves of air raids and dozens of ballistic missiles with conventional and chemical weapon payloads hit Iranian cities and caused several thousands of casualties within the civilian population. Iran had no way to defend against these attacks or to retaliate in kind. As the Wikipedia entry on the War of the Cities linked above notes:

The conflict caused [the] initiation of Iran's missile program by [the] IRGC.

Currently two of Iran's immediate neighbors have medium range ballistic missile capabilities. Saudi Arabia has a ballistic missile force of older Chinese DF-3 missiles as well as newer Chinese CSS-5 (DF-21). Both types have a range of 1,500-2.5000 miles and a payload capacity of up to 2 tons. Pakistan, Iran's eastern neighbor, has a significant ballistic missile force armed with conventional and nuclear warheads. Israel has medium range ballistic missiles, likely nuclear armed, which can hit Iran. The U.S. has, of course, a missile force with global reach.

Three of Iran's main adversaries, Saudi Arabia, Israel and the United States, have missiles capable of hitting Iran. Iran does not want to repeat the experience of the Iraq-Iran war. Iran will not give up its own ballistic missile force. Those missiles are its only means to deter especially its Wahabbi and Zionist neighbors and the imperial U.S. from using their missiles against Iranian cities. Iran thus rejects any negotiations about its ballistic missile programs but it has put sensible restrictions on its active forces.

Iran's Supreme Leader voluntarily limited the range of Iran's ballistic missiles:

Speaking on the sidelines of a conference in Tehran, Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari [the head of the paramilitary Revolutionary Guard] told journalists that the capability of Iran’s ballistic missiles is “enough for now.” The Guard runs Iran’s missile program, answering only to Khamenei.

“Today, the range of our missiles, as the policies of Iran’s supreme leader dictate, are limited to 2,000 kilometers, even though we are capable of increasing this range,” he said.

The Iranian ballistic missile program is obviously not directed at Europe. Its missiles can not reach any European city. There is no reason for European countries to worry about them. This could change though if Europe acts hostile against Iran.

No European government has yet plausibly explained why Iran's ballistic missile program should be of any more concerns than Saudi Arabia's or Israel's.

What the UN Security Council resolutions say about Iran's ballistic missiles

To understand the legal aspects we have to dip into the history and language of the relevant UNSC resolutions.

Before the nuclear agreement the UN Security Council Resolution 1929, adopted on June 9 2010, restricted Iran's ballistic missile program in a legally binding form:

Acting under Article 41 of Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, [the UNSC]
[...] 9. Decides that Iran shall not undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using ballistic missile technology, and that States shall take all necessary measures to prevent the transfer of technology or technical assistance to Iran related to such activities;

Note the specific description of "missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons".

On July 20 2015 the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 2231. It endorses the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, JCPOA or nuclear agreement, which the five permanent UNSC members and Germany had negotiated with Iran.

In the new resolution the UNSC decides under point 7 that ...:

(a) The provisions of resolutions 1696 (2006), 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007), 1803 (2008), 1835 (2008), 1929 (2010) and 2224 (2015) shall be terminated;

That paragraph lifts all old restrictions on Iran's ballistic missile activities. The limits of UNSCR 1929 (2010) on ballistic missiles no longer apply.

[Excursus - "snap back"]
There is a tricky issue following the above point 7 in para 10 to 15 of UNSCR 2231 under the title "Application of Provisions of Previous Resolutions". The termination of the old resolutions and the sanctions those applied can, under certain conditions, itself be terminated. This is the "snap back" provisions the Obama administration held out against its critics. A National Public Radio piece explained the process:

Here's how it would work: If U.S. officials believe Iran is violating the deal, they would bring the allegation to the Security Council. At that point, sanctions would be imposed automatically — the first unusual twist in the deal. If members of the security council — Russia, China or others — rise to Iran's defense, they can block the new sanctions only by passing a new resolution.

That could be stopped by a U.S. veto. The U.S. is one of five permanent council members — including Great Britain, France, Russia and China — with veto power.

In other words, instead of making sanctions vulnerable to a veto by the five permanent Security Council members, the deal flips that around, and gives the U.S. (or others) power to stop any attempt to block the imposition of sanctions.

To come to the point where the "snap-back" provision apply, the U.S. or other states must only "notify" the UNSC that it found an issues it "believes constitutes significant non-performance of commitments under the JCPOA."

Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei has said that such a "snap back" of sanctions, based on dubious allegations, would be considered by Iran as a violation of the nuclear agreement.

The U.S. and the west-Europeans seem to believe that this backdoor to reintroduce the old sanction regime against Iran can be triggered by their lamenting over Iranian ballistic missiles activities. A precise reading of the resolution shows that this is not the case.
[End of the "snap back" excursus]

The new UNSCR 2231 (2015) itself does not mention ballistic missiles at all. But it has two annexes. Annex A is a copy of the JCPOA as adopted in Vienna on July 14 2015 by all JCPOA parties including Iran. Annex B is simply headline "Statement". It accompanied JCPOA but was issued only by the 5+1 states, not by Iran. The exact legal status of the Annex B "Statement" within the UNSCR is not clear (at least to me). But even if we consider it a binding part of the resolution it does not give the legal backing for the current claims against Iran.

The Annex B Statement provides that:

3. Iran is called upon not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology, until the date eight years after the JCPOA Adoption Day or [...]

That point 3 in the Annex B is the only item in UNSCR 2231 (2015) that is relevant to Iran's current ballistic missiles.


  • UNSCR 2231 (2015) lifts the strict, legally binding provision ("decides") of UNSCR 1929 (2010) against any and all ballistic missiles in Iran.
  • UNSCR 2231 (2015) introduces a new point in an Annex Statement that asks Iran in a legally non-binding way ("calls upon") to limit its ballistic missile activities.
  • There is a significant change of language in the description of the relevant ballistic missiles between the two resolutions. While 1929 (2010) talks about "missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons", 2231 (2015) talks about "missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons".

Some people, like the US Ambassador to the UN and some European ministers, are trying to build on the "calls upon" provision in the Annex B Statement to accuse Iran of legally violating the resolution.

This is nonsense. The UN issued "Editorial Guidelines" for writing resolutions. The "calls upon" phrase is listed as a "common operative verb" distinct from other, much stronger common operative verbs likes "decides" or "demands". The European Institute for Peace notes on UN resolutions that:

[B]inding paragraphs start with “decides” instead of “urges”, “invites” or “calls upon”.

The "call upon" phrase in UN resolutions is non-binding. It is Diplomatese for "pretty please". Saying "No!" to someones "pretty please" is not defying an "obligation". It is not against the "spirit" of anything. Acting against the request expressed in a "calls upon" clause is NOT a violation of a resolution. It can thus not trigger any legal consequences.

In addition to that the change of language in the ballistic missile description from 1929 (2010) to 2231 (2015) acknowledges that there are ballistic missile types to which even the "calls upon" clause does not apply.

The old formulation practically designated all missiles that have a certain lift capacity and allow for a payload size theoretically large enough to hold a nuclear weapon. This first formulation includes, for example, missiles developed to launch satellites into space as well as some conventional short range artillery missiles.

The second, new formulation is much less restrictive. It applies only to missiles which are consciously "designed", i.e. developed and engineered, with nuclear weapon capability in mind. The technical specificity of such a "design" must go beyond the simple provision of a certain lift capacity and payload size like it is used for space launchers or conventional ballistic missiles. Such differentiating and qualifying language as the resolutions use would otherwise make no sense. The authors and legal editors of such resolutions do not use different technical descriptions for the same specific issue.

Iran says that none of its missiles are "designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons." Thus even the non-binding "calls upon" clause does not apply to them.

It is interesting to note that the change on ballistic missiles between the two resolution was made against the will of the Obama administration. As Philip Gordon, the White House coordinator for the Middle East in the Obama administration, recalled:

[W]hen Mr. Obama sought to include a prohibition on ballistic missiles in the Iran deal, or at least extend a previous Security Council resolution banning them, not just Russia and China but even our European allies in the nuclear negotiations refused. They argued that the ballistic missile ban was put in place in 2010 only to pressure Iran to reach a nuclear deal, and they refused to extend it once that deal had been concluded.

All commentators, except the most partisan against Iran, accept the change between the resolutions 1929 and 2231 and see no violation in Iran's ballistic missile program.

But now the Europeans are trying to revert that position. While they try to keep the nuclear agreement intact they now attempt to build up a new case against Iran based on the ballistic missile nonsense.


  • The claim of the three European countries that they now want to press Iran on ballistic missiles only to soothe Trump and to make him stick to the JCPOA is a lie. They used the same irrelevant pressure point in 2016 under the Obama administration.
  • The claim that the ongoing ballistic missile program of Iran is falling under the UNSCR 2231 missile definition is false. There is no evidence that any Iranian ballistic missiles was specifically "designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons".
  • Even if there were such evidence Iran would not be in any legally relevant violation of the UNSCR 2231. The "calls upon" phrase used in the relevant paragraph is non-binding. (The implied assertion that the Annex II Statement is a fully operational part of the UNSCR might also be questionable.)

All the above shows that the Europeans are not honest with regards to Iran. While they want to keep the formal nuclear agreement intact they still want to take hostile actions against Iran and reintroduce or create new sanctions against it. Iran can not and should hope for any support from Europe.

Posted by b on January 23, 2018 at 19:09 UTC | Permalink


Excellent article, b. My sincere thanks for digging all that fine print up and providing a great summary.

Two things I believe we can further gather from your conclusions:

1) Western leaders are behaving like homicidal children. Indeed, they never learned the value of not getting what you want. They cut through any impediment using whatever twisted logic they can surmise.

2) Those western citizens that wish to chastise us Americans for enabling our horrific empire had best look at their own house firstly. America could not lead the rampage without the backing of these spineless globalists that lead your morally-enlightened vassal-states. The more you can understand that, the further you will be able to go in transforming your locality.

Posted by: NemesisCalling | Jan 23 2018 19:37 utc | 1

Russia has a new buyer for the s400. the country has not been named yet. could this new delivery be intended for Iran?

Posted by: Rd | Jan 23 2018 19:50 utc | 2

The more sanctions the "West" imposes the better.
The sanctioned country will have to learn to live independently. Will have to learn that there is nothing to trust about the "West". And it will have to learn to work together with the other "enemies of the West".

Post 1 says "Indeed, they never learned the value of not getting what you want." In case of EU-"leaders", one might no longer be able to say that they "want something". It might not make sense at all.

Posted by: Oliver K | Jan 23 2018 19:56 utc | 3

China and Russia have been the only allies that Iran can rely on for now. Both Israel and Saudi Arabia still hold considerable influence over Europe and the US. Although MbS managed to delay the inevitable, it's only a matter of time that the Yemen war will bankrupt the Saudis. I'm looking forward to seeing the end of the House of Saud.

Posted by: Ian | Jan 23 2018 20:14 utc | 4

A reference article to keep - Thanks b.

Looking at the present crop of European "leaders", who all want to be seen "making a mark" in the political arena, we can understand why a full and honest peace across the world is a long way off.

Although b says that the EU leaders have already decided that they want "new" sanctions, I am still confused as to why. In the case of France it had good to excellent commercial relations with Iran at one time, or was that only with the US puppet, the "Shah"?
Maybe it is because after the end/replacement of Mosadegh it becomes obvious that "Democracy" is only a word for the suckers (like me). The true aim being dominance by EU and US non-democratic "organisers". (Note; I don't like the word "Elite" which is usually used, as it implies a value judgement - to which I don't subscribe)

Posted by: stonebird | Jan 23 2018 20:25 utc | 5

Well done, b--Outstanding!

It seems rather clear that the Forked Tongue behavior of the Outlaw US Empire was learned during its colonial years from UK and France; and the lesson to the world provided by their behavior is for them to be deemed untrustworthy and unworthy of any contractual arrangements until they prove themselves worthy.

If I were Iran, I'd lobby Russia and China very hard to develop the Eastern and Southern aspects of the BRI/EAEU well before doing anything in the West until those regimes prove themselves to be honest and trustworthy--which means no longer being vassals of the Outlaw US Empire.

Clearly at the bottom of all this is the Outlaw US Empire's fear of the BRI/EAEU's potential not just economically, but as a geopolitical weapon capable of pulling Europe out from under its Jackboot.

Posted by: karlof1 | Jan 23 2018 20:31 utc | 6

Nice article explaining the nuclear deal in a detailed way.

Iran the last 100 year never attacked a country. The US the last 40 years bombed and devastated more than 10. And then we're not even talking about supporting bloody coups and other destructive ways the US has been destroying the social fabric of countries like Venezuela for example. Unless Iranians, North Koreans and many other nationalities are considered as sub humans, they have full equal right to acquire not only a strong missile deterrence but also a nuclear one. US, ISrael, France, UK, ... are not more equal than others.

Posted by: xor | Jan 23 2018 20:43 utc | 7

NemesisCalling no. 1

Those western citizens that wish to chastise us Americans for enabling our horrific empire had best look at their own house firstly. America could not lead the rampage without the backing of these spineless globalists that lead your morally-enlightened vassal-states. The more you can understand that, the further you will be able to go in transforming your locality.

Yes, I have always thought that the European political class employs a blame game against the US political class strictly as cover for what they want to do anyway--"Well, the US is crazy and aggressive, but they are an ally, so [sigh] we should go along with them."

The elites of Nato whether it be German, French, or American, have more in common with each other than any of them have in common with the interests of their ordinary citizens.

Posted by: sleepy | Jan 23 2018 20:48 utc | 8

While the article is good, kudos to effort and research, if give false impression that there is something called a law. That impression is particularly wrong in so-called international law field.

the UN is non legal entity and authority, as such should be dissolved. thus we have the theater of absurdity with phony allegations and claims in order to further its geopolitical goals by one nation or group of them affiliated by their cultural and economic interests.

“Hardly any other ideological element is held in such profound contempt in our civilization as international law. Every generation has seen it break down as an instrument for organizing peace, and a theory that disposes of its universalist claims has the obvious advantage of appearing to be realistic. The fallacy should be equally obvious, however. To abandon universalism because of its failures is like rejecting civil rights because they help legitimize and veil class exploitation, or democracy because it conceals boss control, or Christianity because churches have corrupted Christian morals. Faced with a corrupt administration of justice, the reasonable person does not demand a return to the war of each against all, but fights for an honest system. Likewise, when we have shown that international law has been misused for imperialistic aims, our task has begun, not ended. We must fight against imperialism.”

—Franz Neumann, Behemoth: The Structure and Practice of National Socialism 1933-1944>

Posted by: Partisan | Jan 23 2018 20:53 utc | 9

b, see you have cured your writers cramp. This is an excellent article, in my opinion what matters most to the US/Israel and Saudis is Irans conventional weaponry [most of it home produced] the recent agreements with Israel talked of "A third joint team, would grapple with Iran’s ballistic missile program and its efforts to build accurate missile systems in Syria and Lebanon". They are terrified of these conventional and ACCURATE missiles being transferred to Hezbollah, to add to the 100,000 missiles they already have targeting all of Israel including the whole of Metropolitan Tel Aviv ,Ben Gurion airport and Dimona. The Iranians can never please US/Israel, they would need to totally disarm, similar to the way in which the official Lebanese forces are restricted to light arms, and be content with a few prop driven training aircraft [tiger moths etc]. The Iranians have been promised [by Russia] membership of the Shanghai Cooperation Council they should join this military and economic group because the West is definitely out to get them.

Posted by: harrylaw | Jan 23 2018 20:58 utc | 10

Yeah, but the French at least have been looking for contracts in Iran. Your text doesn't deal with this question. I haven't the latest information, but I haven't seen the stiffening you suggest. Is Europe turning against Iran? I didn't see it in your links, other than being polite to the Americans.

Posted by: Laguerre | Jan 23 2018 21:06 utc | 11

b, thank you for another excellent article. Few contributors were surprised with a role of EU leaders?! Isn't it obvious that most of the EU countries have been practicing supremacy, racism, disregard for everybody else, ... for centuries, much longer then US. US is a student which excelled, and surpassed the teacher(s).

BTW, I must admit that I have never seen as good looking Israeli as one in the cartoon, was the author biased, or just afraid?

Posted by: ex-SA | Jan 23 2018 21:07 utc | 12

Great detail b thanks again. I did like the cartoon, a nice touch.

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Jan 23 2018 21:13 utc | 13

@ 3

Some public links for you

Myanmar is a good bet for future purchases of RF missile tech

Following on from the SU-35 deal with Indonesia the TNI is also interested in upgrading their S300 systems to the 400s, ( probably combined with agreements for further cooperation/access with RF Forces )

2018 will be a good year for RF tech sales worldwide.

Posted by: 07564111 | Jan 23 2018 21:18 utc | 14

A little thing that is not well-known : sorry for the format since I hav eto retrieve it from personal archive

Iran owns 10 pct of French nuclear fuel plant
Tuesday September 29, 2009 13:41:41 EDT

PARIS, Sept 29 (Reuters) - A French plant that produces a quarter of the world's enriched uranium is 10 percent owned by Iran, which has had the stake for more than 30 years, nuclear reactor maker Areva said on Tuesday. Confirming a press report in a French satirical weekly, state-controlled Areva said it owned the remainder of the Eurodif plant, which was commissioned in the early 1970s.

The weekly Le Canard Enchaine said in its edition to be published on Wednesday that the Shah of Iran struck a deal in the early 1970s when the country was turning towards nuclear energy to cut dependence on its oil production. 'Iran has never received a single gramme of enriched uranium from France,' an Areva spokeswoman said. 'Iran is a sleeping partner in Eurodif,' she said, adding there had been no technology transfers to the country which has been under U.N. sanctions since 2007 over its disputed atomic programme.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy, U.S. President Barack Obamamag-glass_10x10.gif and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown last week accused Iran, at a Group of 20 summit in Pittsburgh, of building a secret nuclear fuel plant for several years. The Western leaders demanded Tehran comply with international rules on nuclear non-proliferation. 'This stake has never been hidden and there is complete transparency on shareholding,' the Areva spokeswoman added.

(Reporting by Muriel Boselli; editing by Michael Roddy) Keywords: NUCLEAR IRAN/FRANCE ([email protected]; +33 1 4949 5270; Reuters Messaging: [email protected] )

Posted by: Yul | Jan 23 2018 21:20 utc | 15

@Laguerre Yeah, but the French at least have been looking for contracts in Iran. Your text doesn't deal with this question. I haven't the latest information, but I haven't seen the stiffening you suggest. Is Europe turning against Iran? I didn't see it in your links, other than being polite to the Americans.

The U.S. administration is traveling in Europe and telling European banks not to give credit to Iran or face U.S. sanctions. What has Europe done to protect its banks? What has it done to allow free trade with Iran? How come Airbus can't deliver on the planes Iran has ordered? Where are the European laws shielding European companies from unilateral U.S. sanctions on Iran?

Posted by: b | Jan 23 2018 21:22 utc | 16

Dear B,

Excellent article - well worth waiting over a week for and right up there with a previous article "Why North Korea Needs Nukes - And How To End That" for background information and detailed analysis.

I also had a good laugh at the cartoon - I saw what the cartoonist did to Ukraine there!

Thanks very much again.

ex-SA @ 13: Uh, I think the cartoonist missed some details with Israel: off the top of my head, I'd say the fish-net stockings with the suspender belt showing beneath the hem of the short skirt should have been part of the costume.

Posted by: Jen | Jan 23 2018 21:27 utc | 17

It must be mentioned that Iran and the DPRK have collaborated on their missile programs for many years.

I am of the opinion the rapid pace of the DPRK missile program results from this.

I would not be surprised, should the JCPOA collapse, to find Iran suddenly in possession of the HW-15
configured as an satellite launcher, with 3 stages.

I also would not be surprised to find Iran suddenly operating a heavy water moderated reactor in the pilot plant class. This is important because an D2O moderated reactor is fueled with unenriched uranium, and produces plutonium.

I also believe Iran will be admitted to the SCO this year. China and Russia can no longer put that off.

I am also of the opinion Iran & Pakistan will finally "make a deal" regarding the friendship pipeline carrying Iranian gas to Pakistan. Likely during the early part of this year.

In short, I believe we will find the AngloZionists shooting themselves in the foot for several reasons.

These are related to Georgia, Serbia, Ukraine, & Syria.

According to Patriarch Kiril...... a very large part of the reason Russia intervened in Syria was to
save the Christian communities there from the fate they experienced after the overthrow of Saddam.

Turns out the christians were protected by Saddam, such protection ended with his overthrow, and christian communities which had sojourned in Iran for centuries, were wiped out within a few years in the US supervised carnage.


Posted by: Dr. George W. Oprisko | Jan 23 2018 21:34 utc | 18

It's a big mistake to think that the US gets what it wants, as suggested by the cartoon. It doesn't. They have a real problem in Syria, where the idea of supporting the Kurds is failing. They wanted to bring the Kurds over to US support, but it hasn't worked. The Kurds are still dealing with Asad.

Posted by: Laguerre | Jan 23 2018 21:35 utc | 19

Judging from the picture, Israel for all her nastiness has a nice ass. /s

Posted by: SmoothieX12 | Jan 23 2018 21:37 utc | 20

@ 21

until she turns around and you see the face of true evil. no /s

Posted by: 07564111 | Jan 23 2018 21:46 utc | 21

The US has many ways to blackmail the rest of the world, for instance the US may tell European states companies they cannot access the American economy if they strike deals with Iran, for instance Boeing and Airbus are still required to get a license from the US Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) before they formalize any aircraft sale to Iran—Boeing because the company is based in the US, and Airbus because it relies on so many US suppliers to make its planes. If Trump decides the US should leave the Iran deal outright, OFAC could rescind those licenses [32 Billion dollars of sales].

Posted by: harrylaw | Jan 23 2018 21:46 utc | 22

Re: #Releasethememo

The background document (99 pages) have been leaked to infowars via William Binney. It is up on their web site now with the link to the document published on scribd.

Now they have to lease the 4 pages from Nunes.

A link, for your convenience: document

Posted by: John | Jan 23 2018 21:54 utc | 23

re b 17

The U.S. administration is traveling in Europe and telling European banks not to give credit to Iran or face U.S. sanctions.
In that case, why have you not said the obvious, that the only US weapon that works is the financial? All the exchange systems are controlled by the US, visa etc. It's very effective.

Posted by: Laguerre | Jan 23 2018 21:57 utc | 24

Ref saudi hubris and western bs
Watch the latest project they want their friends in davos to pay for ('investement and technology transfer, my friend')

And that s supposed to be on a ridiculously small island. ?.

Posted by: Mina | Jan 23 2018 22:05 utc | 25

All this only gives me more desire to see Iran again. I was last there in 74. It would be good to see how it is today.

Posted by: Laguerre | Jan 23 2018 22:06 utc | 26

b, thank you for breaking it all down! The cartoon does tell the tale of who is EU-lapdogs' real (((master))).

Posted by: LXV | Jan 23 2018 22:19 utc | 27

The parallels between Iran and Iraq 2003 are stunning (except Iran hasn't done anything wrong.

1. Accused of having WMD, illicit ballistic missiles and an illicit nuclear weapons program which has never been demonstrated.

2. Accused of being the nexus of all terrorism, evil, and running a kill animal shelter. Remember when they used to say that about Saddam's Iraq? (Saddam gave medical care to the 18th hijacker)

What kills me is that you can't even point out this obvious parallel without being accused of being anti-American because every good person knows this is true.

This was only 15 yrs ago. We are without a doubt the dumbest people on the face of the planet. We are dumb because we are good (or something like that).

Posted by: Christian Chuba | Jan 23 2018 22:24 utc | 28

>The US must be continuing to wield a very big stick against Europe because sanctions are a two-way street, hurting both buyers and sellers. Europe has been hurt badly by sanctions on Iran, contributing to Europe's woeful GDP growth (which seems to be in the US interest).
>The UN has no legal authority to tell a country how to conduct its national security program, including in Iran and North Korea. The UN Charter includes "to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace" but there's no evidence that Iran's missiles (or DPRK's nukes, for another example) are any more a threat to peace than those of the US. In fact the latter is the only country to use nukes, enjoys three nuke delivery systems, and also is the foremost threat to peace in the world considering all its invasions and attacks worldwide. So UN resolutions against Iran's ballistic missiles have no legal standing. The US wouldn't stand for it, and why should any other country.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jan 23 2018 23:12 utc | 29

One problem here, there was no military nuke program in Iran, only what Shah started with American help.
It was all about neoliberalization of Iran so Iranian oligarchy could join in globalization urge.
Israel was opposed but lust for enslavement of Iranians to global capital and that includes Jewish prevailed.

Posted by: Kalen | Jan 23 2018 23:54 utc | 30

Don Bacon @33--

"The US wouldn't stand for it, and why should any other country."

Twice in the past @100yrs were attempts made to try and arrange at an international framework/institution to help strive for the goal of sustainable global peace. The first was an abject failure and the second is drowning because of the attitude I quoted, which also mightily contributed to the League's failure too. IMO, the UN became a failure in 1953/54 when it failed to protect Iran and Guatemala from US/UK aggression, although it continues to operate. But the primary problem lies in the attitude/philosophy supporting the quotation; and until that is buried, humans will not know peace.

Posted by: karlof1 | Jan 23 2018 23:57 utc | 31

b, a perfect presentation, well-wrought.

I did this same examination of the precise wording of the UNSC resolutions a few months ago for a comment on a US domestic forum.
It is stunning how few officials or experts bother to read the very clear language and precise legal wording and phraseology.

This effort of yours should be a Primer for everyone who opens his or her mouth on the topic.

Certainly, the Russians and Chinese will not give an inch of ground on this topic. They were key participants who put the final sanctions pressure on Iran in order to get the nuclear deal. It worked and now they will never support alteration of the deal or reinstitution of sanctions because of ballistic missile testing.

Posted by: Red Ryder | Jan 24 2018 0:05 utc | 32

The wording of Article 37 does suggest that the US and Europe have the ability to automatically re-impose UN sanctions by merely raising a complaint in the Security Council regarding Iran's compliance with the JCPOA (where this move to reinstate sanctions could not be halted by veto from Russia or China). We know that the Americans are not above blatant dishonesty and lying, and so they could presumably use this mechanism to reintroduce UN sanctions regardless of actual facts and regardless of opposition from Russia and China.

So this raises a couple of questions: First, why Iran, Russia and China would agree to such a mechanism, and second why the Americans are even threatening to "withdraw" from the treaty if it's not re-negotiated, when apparently a route is open to them to re-introduce UN sanctions (as opposed to unilateral sanctions).

Even just the other day, Mike Pence said that Europe can either "go with the US" or stay in a treaty that no longer includes the US. Why even bother to isolate themselves and make threats like these when they could simply (ab)use the described "conflict resolution" mechanism to, in effect, force all nations to return to the sanctions regime by the authority of the UNSC? Is there something we are missing?

Posted by: Eric | Jan 24 2018 0:15 utc | 33

With regard to my previous comment (No. 37), here is Iranian FM Javad Zarif's position on the snapback issue:

In an address to a gathering of Iranian business people in Tehran on Tuesday, Foreign Minister Zarif said inclusion of the option for reversing commitments to the JCPOA –known as snapback plan- was a result of lack of trust in the US.

The snapback mechanism in the JCPOA suits Iran perfectly, the minister stressed, saying the country can immediately go back on the accord whenever it feels the deal is not fulfilling its interests.

Yet the other side is not going to have an easy job and will have to hold talks with thousands of banks and the UN Security Council, Zarif added.

JCPOA Snapback Mechanism More Beneficial to Iran: FM (Tasnim News Agency)

Posted by: Eric | Jan 24 2018 0:42 utc | 34

Clearly the US goal of new sanctions is to create more economic misery for Iranians so that they would take to the streets in protests (again) that the US could take advantage of as in Ukraine, with the same objective, regime change, which the US has done before in Iran and wants to do again. What a feather in the cap of any US president able to pull off what recent presidents have tried for and failed to accomplish! Remember, real men go to Tehran, not just Baghdad and Damascus.

Newsweek, Jan 2:

Iran's leadership has blamed foreign powers, especially the U.S., for having a hand in recent, deadly protests that have swept the country, pointing to President Donald Trump's immediate support for demonstrators on social media and the U.S.'s long history of invasions and interventions that includes an early interference into Iranian politics that shaped the modern relationship between the two nations.

As Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Bahram Qasemi blasted Trump's eager backing of Iranians taking to the street to protest economic conditions and strict religious rule, Iran's supreme leader and top authority, Shiite Muslim cleric Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, commented on the situation for the first time Tuesday. Khamenei warned of foreign meddling behind the country's civil unrest, but maintained that "what prevents the enemies and their hostile actions is the spirit of courage, self-sacrifice and faith among the people."

"In recent events, the enemies of Iran united by using different tools in their disposition, including money, weapons, politics and intelligence, in order to create problems for the Islamic system," Khamenei said, according to a statement posted to his official website.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jan 24 2018 0:54 utc | 35

@Karlof1 35
Yes, unfortunately the UN for too long has been another branch of the US government, enforcing US world hegemony, with different rules for the US and others despite what the UN Charter says.

UN Charter, Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.
1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

Again, there is no legal basis for UN actions against any country's provisions for its own national security. None. In fact the actions of any country which are taken to defend itself against aggression of the US and its allies, or any other malignant forces, ought to be encouraged and not criticized.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jan 24 2018 1:06 utc | 36


Considering the millions her Uncle lavishes on her, she can well afford the best plastic surgeons and weight trainers in the world to burnish her image ... all that sexy hasbara helps sell tourists on the care-free pleasures of Tel Aviv and distracts them from the seedy realities beneath the nips, tucks and cosmetics.

Posted by: Rusty Pipes | Jan 24 2018 1:19 utc | 37


If this is the kind of writing that is inspired by a bit of time off and writer's block... then please repeat the process!! n As mentioned by others, definitely a reference article.

Posted by: les7 | Jan 24 2018 1:34 utc | 38

I always believed that Obama’s Iran deal was bullsh*t. It was just a delaying tactic.

In line with all the other bulls*t from the Obama Administration:

The “Fiscal Cliff” deal
was just a trick to make Bush tax cuts permanent and to cut subsidies to the poor (via mandatory cuts from the “sequester”).

Obama’s ‘fix’ for Too Big To Fail Banks (TBTF) is merely a political fix: citizens are still on the hook for Bank losses via a mechanism that allows banks to charge customers MORE when the banks are facing increased systemic risk.

HAMP (Home Affordable Modification Program)
Promoted as a way to help homeowners struggling to pay their mortgage after the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, it was really a means of helping banks NOT homeowners. As Timmy Geitner, Obama’s Treasury Secretary, explained: HAMP “foamed the runway” for the banks - allowing homeowners to stay in their homes (continuing to pay upkeep) until the banks could foreclose. While some homeowners were helped, many lost their homes anyway - especially low income homeowners that didn’t have the means to fight the banks.

Wealth and income inequality
Obama’s proposed a minimum wage at which two working parents could make enough to raise a child just above the poverty line.

After Russia’s refusal to allow massive bombing of Syria (Kerry: “The US does do pinpricks.”) Obama allowed ISIS to metasize via a pretended bombing campaign.

A U.N.-sanctioned ‘no-fly’ zone (NFZ) turned into a bombing campaign. Obama’s said it was OK because there were no “boots on the ground”.

Obama’s got Susan Rice to mislead the American people weeks before the 2012 Presidential election (the attack was NOT about a video) and then painted critics as misogynists and fascists.

IRS Scandle
Obama’s IRS targeted political opponents. Computer evidence mysteriously disappeared.

Illegal Surveillance of Trump
Using incidental capture of intelligence recordings In an attempt to collect ‘dirt’ on Trump.

These are just a few examples. This list is not meant to be exhaustive.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jan 24 2018 1:45 utc | 39


Kerry’s quote: “The US doesn’t do pinpricks”.

Benghazi: Obama defended Rice in a way that implied that critics were misogynist and/or racist.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jan 24 2018 2:00 utc | 40

@ b with his comic that is an offense to whores and dogs

I agree with Laguerre's comment about you not calling out the financial aspects of this game, as comprehensive as your posting is.

The UN has always been the court of empire with lots of show and all the action behind the scenes....mostly bought and paid for by empire that is now complaining when their ongoing war crimes and increasing perfidy are stood up against.

Has humanity tried to organize itself without the jackboot of private finance polluting the core of all social interactions? Maybe its time we tried.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Jan 24 2018 2:02 utc | 41

@Jackrabbit 43
Ex-presidents are concerned about their "legacy" and Obama needed something (anything!) positive in foreign relations that he could display in his "presidential library," and luckily Kerry was there to get it done. (Can anyone imagine his predecessor Hillary accomplishing anything positive?) Also Iran went along with it, but not without saying the US coudn't be trusted and would probably renege.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jan 24 2018 2:05 utc | 42

Also forgot to note Obama’s arming of ISIS and alQueda via the bogus ‘moderate rebels’ “train and equip” program.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jan 24 2018 2:07 utc | 43

Don Bacon

I think Obama used “legacy” as a device to push more bullsh*t.

Example: It was said that Hillary’s election would ensure Obama’s ‘legacy’.

LOL! His ‘legacy’ As a master of bullsh*t is very secure.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jan 24 2018 2:29 utc | 44

INDY @ 19
you say
"According to Patriarch Kiril...... a very large part of the reason Russia intervened in Syria was to
save the Christian communities there from the fate they experienced after the overthrow of Saddam.

Turns out the christians were protected by Saddam, such protection ended with his overthrow, and christian communities which had sojourned in Iran for centuries, were wiped out within a few years in the US supervised carnage."

I think you meant to say "sojourned in Iraq"

Posted by: mauisurfer | Jan 24 2018 2:34 utc | 45

So the Europeans are недоговороспособны or “non-agreement capable,” just like their master:

Posted by: William Rood | Jan 24 2018 4:04 utc | 46

Trump is the Republican Obama.

They are both faux populists. Glorified con men.

The faux populist model for US executive office holders is a natural fit with the inverted totalitarian form of government.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jan 24 2018 5:35 utc | 47

thanks b! nice pic that says it all too, lol.. so sad...

@ 48 jr.. that is how i see it too..

Posted by: james | Jan 24 2018 5:46 utc | 48

I think we've seen the start of negotiations.

Speaking on the sidelines of a conference in Tehran, Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari [the head of the paramilitary Revolutionary Guard] told journalists that the capability of Iran’s ballistic missiles is “enough for now.” The Guard runs Iran’s missile program, answering only to Khamenei.
“Today, the range of our missiles, as the policies of Iran’s supreme leader dictate, are limited to 2,000 kilometers, even though we are capable of increasing this range,” he said.

Khamenei and the IRGC are saying that they are content with what they have so future development is negotiable for some time to come. The United States or more particularly needs to come back with a counter offer but it's fairly obvious what the rough terms are going to be - no new missile development for x years after all sanctions are withdrawn and any treaty is nul and void if sanctions are reimposed in the future. I reckon that for the next few months the Iranians will not test any new missiles but unless the United States comes up with an acceptable offer, development and testing will restart later this year to create "facts on the ground". If Trump has any commonsense he will indulge in a bit of theatre and then bank what's on offer. The total cost of the war in Iraq was $4B -$6B. The cost of a war in Iran will be well north of that.

As for why most European politicians are such poodles maybe the NSA and CIA have enough damaging information to destroy many careers, or perhaps the poodles are worried that there will be a "colour" revolution in their country if they resist the evil empire.

As for what they're up to, perhaps the British Civil Service approach of setting up numerous committees to investigate various aspect of the situation which will kick the need to do anything two or three years into the future by which time Trump might be gone. Although my worry there is that the Democrats or at least some of them, the Clintonists, are too committed to Russiagate so the Trump is re-elected. Hopefully the Democrats won't do well enough in the mid-terms to take full control of Congress and might then wotk out what they need to do to defeat Trump in 2020.

Posted by: Ghost Ship | Jan 24 2018 10:16 utc | 49

Thanks b for well detailed article. As an Iranian while reading it I felt so sad! and the things is nobody cares! Although sometimes I thin I know the answer but sometimes I'm losing it and can't figure out why there is this much hostility against us! will it ever finish?

Posted by: BB8 | Jan 24 2018 10:56 utc | 50

(we've known for many moons that the white man speaks with forked tongue)

my take is that the Russians and the Chinese(and the Germans?) have the situation under control(hahaha), i mean, being super powers and all, and that the western cabal has pretty much shot its diplomatic wad, that the reams of diplomatese and legalese amount to so much irrelevant blather.

those UN jobs are among the most coveted of all...housing, six figure salaries, and numerous other perks keep those suits in line, hitting it high in the big apple.

'cause the whole shebang is designed around redundancy, after all...

so, onward and upward on the old economic treadmill.

Posted by: john | Jan 24 2018 11:01 utc | 51

@ Ghost Ship | Jan 24, 2018 5:16:47 AM | 50

The total cost of the war in Iraq was $4B -$6B.

No big difference, $4B -$6B or $4T -$6T, just few zeros in a computer somewhere!

Posted by: ex-SA | Jan 24 2018 13:52 utc | 52

In fact the costs of the Afghan and Iraq wars amount to $6 Trillion dollars. Here Linda Bilmes an economist at Harvard University details those costs....
"Yet the nation’s longest and most expensive war is the one that is still going on. In addition to nearly 7,000 troops killed, the 16-year conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan will cost an estimated US$6 trillion due to its prolonged length, rapidly increasing veterans health care and disability costs and interest on war borrowing. On this Memorial Day, we should begin to confront the staggering cost and the challenge of paying for this war.
The enormous figure reflects not just the cost of fighting – like guns, trucks and fuel – but also the long-term cost of providing medical care and disability compensation for decades beyond the end of the conflict".

Posted by: harrylaw | Jan 24 2018 14:17 utc | 53

For your information here is what one Trillion Dollars looks like...

Posted by: harrylaw | Jan 24 2018 14:21 utc | 54

Posted by: ex-SA | Jan 24, 2018 8:52:19 AM | 55

Being a doddery old Brit I was referring to a British billion which is a million million and equal to the new-fangled US trillion.

Posted by: Ghost Ship | Jan 24 2018 14:45 utc | 55

Jr @ 48: All truthful points..

Posted by: ben | Jan 24 2018 15:28 utc | 56

harrylaw says:

In fact the costs of the Afghan and Iraq wars amount to $6 Trillion dollars

that's an ephemeral number.

A new report analyzing the budgets of both the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), found that between 1998 and 2015, these two departments alone ‘lost’ over $21 trillion in taxpayer funds (link)

war on terror, you say?

Posted by: john | Jan 24 2018 15:33 utc | 57

john, "that's an ephemeral number", maybe but that pile of cash is aesthetically very pleasing. It looks good as well.

Posted by: harrylaw | Jan 24 2018 15:58 utc | 58

Dan Joyner: "Iran's Nuclear Program and International Law", p. 241:

"With regard to Iran’s ballistic missile activities, Security Council Resolution 1929’s circumscription of course terminated, along with the Security Council’s other previous resolutions, on Implementation Day, January 16, 2016. In its place, Security Council Resolution 2231 in Annex B provides the following text:

Iran is called upon not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology, until the date eight years after the JCPOA Adoption Day or until the date on which the IAEA submits a report confirming the Broader Conclusion, whichever is earlier.

The substitution of the leading phrase “calls upon” in this text in Resolution 2231 has legal significance, as I explained in Chapter 6. The change to this invitational yet legally nonbinding phrase in Resolution 2231 means that, as of January 16, 2016, Iran is no longer under a legal prohibition regarding its ballistic missile activity from the Security Council. The remaining hortatory expression in Resolution 2231 by its terms expires on October 18, 2023."

Posted by: Gesine Hammerling | Jan 24 2018 16:31 utc | 59

Gesine Hammerling, yes, I think a fair reading of 2231 essentially says, 'Iran can test and manufacture their own missiles but cannot import foreign missile technology until 2023'.

And the way it's worded, it would be the other party who would be in violation regarding missile imports since the text requires states to notify the security council before transferring material to Iran but that's a small point.

Posted by: Christian Chuba | Jan 24 2018 16:39 utc | 60

The Annex B Statement provides that:

3. Iran is called upon not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology, until the date eight years after the JCPOA Adoption Day or [...]

It's pretty obvious that the wording in the original draft of Annex B began: "Iran agrees not to undertake any..." and it's equally obvious that Team Iran said...
"In your dreams (Christian Scum)! Our missile program is separate from the Nuclear weapons issue we won't agree to abandon or suspend it."

So the weasels replaced "agrees" with some (imo) unenforcible weasel words. I agree with b, that if the Khristian Kiddies pursue their 'snap back' daydream then Iran would be obliged to respond to their churlishness by repudiating the entire agreement. My problem with 'is called upon' is that it doesn't specify the entity authorised to make such a call.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jan 24 2018 17:26 utc | 61

The great ' Western ' fear - lying behind these events - is that Persian hydrocarbon trade with China , long term, will translate into China becoming a supersuper power . The access to that quality , reliable energy translates on China's part into future weapons production and design that Western militaries fear will eclipse them .
For many years the Persians have templated much of their weapons development around original Chinese arms and rocket design .

Posted by: ashley albanese | Jan 24 2018 20:04 utc | 62

The tail that wags the dog also wags the other doggies.

They all dance to the tune of their master (should I say mistress in the wake of the cartoon?)

If Netanyahu had accepted the Iran deal, plenty activities would be underway in Iran.

Peugeot has equipped a new factory which has been ready to manufacture automobiles
since 2016 but has not yet started producing anything in view of the arm twisting
of the US on the banking system. One of the many examples of stillbirths in the aftermath
of the JCPOA.

Rule Judea, Rule!

It is not business uber alles but "Judea uber alles."

US economic interests are hurt by the Govt policy in regards to Iran and other countries.
So it is not business uber alles.

It's the tail

Not even Boeing can revert this death grip on Iran. Airbus even less.

Posted by: CarlD | Jan 24 2018 20:07 utc | 63

@CarlD 67
Israel's influence upon the US in the Middle East is coincidental with the US policy of being in charge in the Middle East, as stated in the Carter Doctrine years ago. This US policy has recently been threatened by US mistakes in the ME, as in Iraq and Syria, so the US has raised the stakes. Calling Iran a threat to world peace and to US national security now rolls off the tongues of all US journalists, consultants and experts as if it were an actual fact. The recently currently created missile/sanction issue has the side effect of weakening Europe and increasing its reliance upon the US, which suits Washington, the leader of the free world.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jan 24 2018 20:36 utc | 64


Washington the leadee of the "free World"

Posted by: CarlD | Jan 24 2018 20:42 utc | 65

@Carl 69
LOTFW is sarcasm on my part, but it is US policy in Washington, with Russia, China, Iran and North Korea (among others to a lesser degree) being "not free" and ruled by dictators. Black & white.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jan 24 2018 21:00 utc | 66

for anyone who didn't get round to reading the link to Elijah Magnier's article at the top of b's post, need to get round to reading it.. it is indeed an excellent overview of where we are on the international stage here and now...

Posted by: james | Jan 24 2018 21:19 utc | 67

Thanks so much for your good work b. Much appreciated and evidently you have recovered.

As already mentioned the crux of the matter is Iran’s ability to supply longer range missiles to Hezbollah, with the threat therein of shutting down Ben Gurion airport and bringing Tel Aviv to a standstill. What you didn’t go into in your piece was the issue of nuclear-capable missiles. If, as has already been established, Iran has no nuclear weapons program and cannot weaponise a missile with nuclear warheads, how can than this still be used as an argument?

Regarding Europe’s failure to chart an independent course on Iran, France and Britain have strong Israeli lobbies, and in France’s case influential pro-Israel people very close to power. Germany is an occupied country. Because of the close link between US and European financial systems it would not be difficult for American hedge funds to topple, for example, Deutsch Bank with its huge over-exposure to derivatives, or one or more of the big Italian banks.

Posted by: Lochearn | Jan 24 2018 22:16 utc | 68

@ 74

Was Genghis Khan a Freemason Rothschild? Were the Romans Jews? Were the Conquistadores Hebrew? Were the English of brutal enclosures Judean?

Posted by: Lochearn | Jan 24 2018 22:52 utc | 69


Posted by: Sid Finster | Jan 24 2018 23:04 utc | 70

I frequently visited MOA but never had the opportunity to leave comments here. Good site. Good good good. Brilliant. I enjoy reading the articles and the comments.

Posted by: ConfusedPundit | Jan 24 2018 23:12 utc | 71

Lochearn @75--

Excellent observations about the human penchant to have power and control over other humans. Seems a universal human trait that's only modified by using very strong taboos against its use; unfortunately, most of those cultures/societies were wiped out by others who'd honed that trait into a most insidious weapon.

Posted by: karlof1 | Jan 24 2018 23:35 utc | 72

Posted by: Sid Finster | Jan 24, 2018 6:04:08 PM |

LOL I doubt somehow that the amerikan government will chose to talk about these two butchers copping their karma publicly lest someone asks why amerika is assisting terrorists intent on bringing down a Nato ally. The real issue is that since amerika has obviously given an unofficial green light to Ankara to blow the shit outta Afrin wtf was the pentagon doing leaving a murder of arseholes behind?
Best guess is that this was a mixture of not wanting to rush out the exit of the north western headchoppers enclave in case those mugs realised they have indeed been kicked to the kerb and the parallel notion of creating a few martyrs just in case they can come in handy later.
Thanks for your stupidity morons.

Posted by: Debsisdead | Jan 25 2018 0:17 utc | 73

@79 debs.. don't think for a minute the usa won't use this or something similar and ongoing to go for a bigger ramp up.. they might be fucked in the head, but what is to stop more madness for coming of all this? that is indeed my fear here..

Posted by: james | Jan 25 2018 0:36 utc | 74

@ Lochearn and karlof1 about the non-ethnic nature of our past power/control tendencies.

Our evolution, or lack thereof, as a species excels in some areas and is very retarded in others. The ingrained social hierarchy that exists and has evolved because of private property/inheritance is made worse by private ownership of the tools and accumulated capital of finance. I call it the God of Mammon religion that is never discussed but is more powerful than the rest of religions combined because it controls the lifeblood of most/damn near all economies.

I have studied enough cultural anthropology to believe that we can organize ourselves as a society much better if we make finance a public utility and put restrictions on ongoing accumulation of private property.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Jan 25 2018 0:49 utc | 75

psychohistorian @81--

I agree with you 100%. Better functioning societies and their cultures have and a few still exist on the planet, providing proof positive that humanity can--and ought--to do much better than its current malaise. Yesterday's vote result for Medicaid funding is a case in point.

Posted by: karlof1 | Jan 25 2018 0:59 utc | 76

@81 psychohistorian.. did you ever check out charles eisensteins work?? here's a book you would enjoy..

Posted by: james | Jan 25 2018 1:10 utc | 77

@76. Big problem for Donald there (if it's true). Our boys/girls are getting killed. Erdogan is thumbing his nose. We must do something.

Posted by: dh | Jan 25 2018 2:28 utc | 78

dh @84:

The US have no business in Syria.

Posted by: Ian | Jan 25 2018 3:44 utc | 79

@ ConfusedPundit | Jan 24, 2018 6:12:57 PM | 77
Great to see somebody here who is able to show a reality-compatible picture. At the place where you are I would visit this site ony using VPN, what you hopefully do anyway. If not install the Opera browser that contains an easy way to get it.
In Turkey, for example, it is not possible to visit Wikipedia. When one tries it from within the country the IP number is first caught in a logfile and then they send you to a fake website that says that the certificate of this site is not valid. Now it most likely will get even worse as the war against Syria has been started.

Posted by: Hausmeister | Jan 25 2018 5:43 utc | 80

When you see how they plan the funding of their children's hospitals you wonder how sane people can trust them to carry on wars

Posted by: Mina | Jan 25 2018 6:39 utc | 81

thanks so much, bern. The charge is coolest i´ve ever seen on the M/E recent history, with those those front runners and that gayish pack of puppetee dogs...
and sending it to a series of acquaintances.

Posted by: augusto | Jan 25 2018 11:37 utc | 82

The comments to this entry are closed.