Jump to content

Perpetual Middle East Geopolitical Quagmire Megathread


Hugo Stiglitz

Recommended Posts

lol, yeah, what did happen to the Agreed Framework, Bibi?

Quote

The United States successfully froze that stockpile‚ÄĒa freeze that lasted eight years. And when the Bush Administration chose to ‚Äúshatter‚ÄĚ the Agreement (Mr. Bolton‚Äôs characterization, not mine) the consequences were clear. North Korea has increased its stockpile of plutonium to more than 60 kilograms and conducted three nuclear explosions. Moreover, the United States failed utterly to constrain North Korea‚Äôs uranium enrichment program, which is now the major source of uncertainly about the size of North Korea‚Äôs nuclear stockpile. The same President who walked away from the agreement spent the final years of his term trying to resurrect it, albeit under a different name to avoid any admission of failure.

https://www.38north.org/2015/05/jlewis051415/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
36 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Nah.  Until we end Congress ends its addiction to oil the financial largess of Defense Contractors, the House of Saud and the Israel lobby, their enemies in the Middle East will have value worth protecting invading and occupying.

Agree with you re oil, but as long as those two countries want us waging war in the ME in order to advance their geopolitical objectives, our bought-and-paid-for political class will gladly oblige.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Binyamin Netanyahu’s dramatic declaration to world leaders in 2012 that Iranwas about a year away from making a nuclear bomb was contradicted by his own secret service, according to a top-secret Mossad document.

It is part of a cache of hundreds of dossiers, files and cables from the world‚Äôs major intelligence services ‚Äď one of the biggest spy leaks in recent times.

Brandishing a cartoon of a bomb with a red line to illustrate his point, the Israeli prime minister warned the UN in New York that Iran would be able to build nuclear weapons the following year and called for action to halt the process.

But in a secret report shared with South Africa a few weeks later, Israel‚Äôs intelligence agency concluded that Iran was ‚Äúnot performing the activity necessary to produce weapons‚ÄĚ. The report highlights the gulf between the public claims and rhetoric of top Israeli politicians and the assessments of Israel‚Äôs military and intelligence establishment.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/23/leaked-spy-cables-netanyahu-iran-bomb-mossad

really wish this motherfucker would drop dead 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Binyamin Netanyahu’s dramatic declaration to world leaders in 2012 that Iranwas about a year away from making a nuclear bomb was contradicted by his own secret service, according to a top-secret Mossad document.

That's not a surprise. The Mossad has a lot of integrity, and it always has, internally. The problem is the Knesset/PM/MFA/etc completely disregard it when they tell them shit that they don't want to hear...kinda like how we have representatives, senators, and presidents repeating the myth of "the hate us for our freedom" when we've had pentagon studies going back years literally stating "actually no, that's not even close to accurate."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of the following I have no doubts...

A.  Iran is run by some really shitty people.

B.  Iran is a leading state sponsor of terrorism.

C. Iran wants nuclear weapons.

D. Nothing good happens when Iran get's nuclear weapons.

E. Unlike NK who's leaders are secular a-holes who only care about their opulent life on earth and Nordic hookers....these crazy cult fucks in Iran think that creating Armageddon brings back their 'messiah'   Learn more here and starts paradise on Earth for muslim believers.   

F. Israel has 100+ nukes that they've never used.  They have a military that has proven on multiple occasions is capable of wiping out their enemies and taking land.  Yet Israel has given back land, allows muslims to live and vote inside Israel...even holding elected office.  They treat women as people and don't throw gays off buildings. 

G. If Iran had nukes they'd have used them.  They have never given back anything.  Being an non-muslim in Iran is a deadly choice.  Being a woman or a homosexual...also not advised in Iran. 

On this irrefutable facts alone...fuck Iran's leadership.  Fuck Obama for giving them $100 Billion...even if it was their money.  Fuck Obama & Kerry & Ben Rhodes for the #IranDeal...hell, even John Podesta's private emails relieved that he believed this shit show would lead to a nuclear Iran.  

I don't want to get into another war...but I don't want a nuclear Iran even less.  Regardless of what anyone says...we're at war with islam...or at least they are at war with (non-believers / the West / Christians / Jews) .  Deny it at your own peril. 

  • Like 2
  • Fuck You 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, XR4ticlone said:

Of the following I have no doubts...

A.  Iran is run by some really shitty people.

B.  Iran is a leading state sponsor of terrorism.

C. Iran wants nuclear weapons.

D. Nothing good happens when Iran get's nuclear weapons.

E. Unlike NK who's leaders are secular a-holes who only care about their opulent life on earth and Nordic hookers....these crazy cult fucks in Iran think that creating Armageddon brings back their 'messiah'   Learn more here and starts paradise on Earth for muslim believers.   

F. Israel has 100+ nukes that they've never used.  They have a military that has proven on multiple occasions is capable of wiping out their enemies and taking land.  Yet Israel has given back land, allows muslims to live and vote inside Israel...even holding elected office.  They treat women as people and don't throw gays off buildings. 

G. If Iran had nukes they'd have used them.  They have never given back anything.  Being an non-muslim in Iran is a deadly choice.  Being a woman or a homosexual...also not advised in Iran. 

On this irrefutable facts alone...fuck Iran's leadership.  Fuck Obama for giving them $100 Billion...even if it was their money.  Fuck Obama & Kerry & Ben Rhodes for the #IranDeal...hell, even John Podesta's private emails relieved that he believed this shit show would lead to a nuclear Iran.  

I don't want to get into another war...but I don't want a nuclear Iran even less.  Regardless of what anyone says...we're at war with islam...or at least they are at war with (non-believers / the West / Christians / Jews) .  Deny it at your own peril. 

People who believe shit like this are the problem, and why we have Trump. 

Brisket's right, we're doomed as a nation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, XR4ticlone said:

Of the following I have no doubts...

A.  Iran is run by some really shitty people.

B.  Iran is a leading state sponsor of terrorism.

C. Iran wants nuclear weapons.

D. Nothing good happens when Iran get's nuclear weapons.

E. Unlike NK who's leaders are secular a-holes who only care about their opulent life on earth and Nordic hookers....these crazy cult fucks in Iran think that creating Armageddon brings back their 'messiah'   Learn more here and starts paradise on Earth for muslim believers.   

F. Israel has 100+ nukes that they've never used.  They have a military that has proven on multiple occasions is capable of wiping out their enemies and taking land.  Yet Israel has given back land, allows muslims to live and vote inside Israel...even holding elected office.  They treat women as people and don't throw gays off buildings. 

G. If Iran had nukes they'd have used them.  They have never given back anything.  Being an non-muslim in Iran is a deadly choice.  Being a woman or a homosexual...also not advised in Iran. 

On this irrefutable facts alone...fuck Iran's leadership.  Fuck Obama for giving them $100 Billion...even if it was their money.  Fuck Obama & Kerry & Ben Rhodes for the #IranDeal...hell, even John Podesta's private emails relieved that he believed this shit show would lead to a nuclear Iran.  

I don't want to get into another war...but I don't want a nuclear Iran even less.  Regardless of what anyone says...we're at war with islam...or at least they are at war with (non-believers / the West / Christians / Jews) .  Deny it at your own peril. 

You are never not going to be terrified. You are their perfect mark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, XR4ticlone said:

Ok...they're at war with us. 

Better?

As for the other...I'd love to hear where I'm wrong. 

They aren't at war with us, either. 

You also don't know that Iran would use nuclear weapons if they had them. There's only one nation state in that "elite" category.

Edited by David Dennison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, XR4ticlone said:

Ok...they're at war with us. 

Better?

As for the other...I'd love to hear where I'm wrong. 

They’re not at war with us either. You’d do well to do read well-established pentagon studies going back 60 years rather than parroting Samuel Huntington’s feeble drivel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, David Dennison said:

They aren't at war with us, either. 

You also don't know that Iran would use nuclear weapons if they had them. There'sÔĽŅÔĽŅÔĽŅÔĽŅ only one nation state in that "elite" category.

Know?  No, I don't 100% know they would have. 

Do I have strong suspensions that they would have...100% yes.

You make the mistake of applying your beliefs about the value of human life & human decency to others.  

I'm guessing you wouldn't throw gay people off buildings?  Or stone a woman to death for being raped?  

 

Finally...I guess 'Death to America' is just something they say for kicks? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, XR4ticlone said:

Of the following I have no doubts...

Being an non-muslim in Iran is a deadly choice.

2

 

12 hours ago, XR4ticlone said:

I'd love to hear where I'm wrong. 

 

Don't confuse ISIS with Iran. And, note, I'm not saying Iran doesn't treat non-Muslims as second-class citizens, but I am saying that they don't summarily execute folks for being non-Muslim. In other words, it's not "a deadly choice" as you stated.

Quote

Iran is a country where people at rallies routinely chant "Death to Israel." It's also home to the largest Jewish population in the Middle East outside of Israel and Turkey.

Iran's Jewish population topped 100,000 in the years before the Shah of Iran was toppled in 1979 by the country's Shiite Muslim clerics. Today, the number of Jews has dipped to below 9,000.

The Jews' very presence in Iran demonstrates the complexity of a country that is hard for outsiders to understand. 

https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/02/19/387265766/irans-jews-its-our-home-and-we-plan-to-stay

Quote

Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, and the Sunni branch of Islam are officially recognized by the government, and have reserved seats in the Iranian Parliament.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran#Religion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, XR4ticlone said:

The difference is I don't know any evangelicals that want to start WWIII in hopes of that being the case.  

But go on...

Ok, this dude is either straight up trolling or he doesn't know a single evangelical.

Why do you think they stand so firmly behind Israel?  Because they really like Jews?

No...it's because the Israeli state is necessary for the End of Times...aka Armageddon

21 minutes ago, XR4ticlone said:

FinallyÔĽŅ...I guess ÔĽŅ'Death ÔĽŅto AmericaÔĽŅ' is just something ÔĽŅthey sÔĽŅay forÔĽŅ kicks?ÔĽŅ¬†

ÔĽŅ

Kinda like when folks here say "kill all Muslims" or that we should "bomb the Middle East into the stone age."?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, XR4ticlone said:

Know?  No, I don't 100% know they would have. 

Do I have strong suspensions that they would have...100% yes.

You make the mistake of applying your beliefs about the value of human life & human decency to others.  

I'm guessing you wouldn't throw gay people off buildings?  Or stone a woman to death for being raped?  

 

Finally...I guess 'Death to America' is just something they say for kicks? 

 

You make the mistake of blaming all of Islam for the actions of a few. We don't do that to Christians who murder doctors or drown their children in a bath tub. 

And Death to America is a political slogan in the same vein as Make America Great Again. It's designed to get its target audience riled up. 

 

Edited by David Dennison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, David Dennison said:

They aren't at war with us, either. 

You also don't know that Iran would use nuclear weapons if they had them. There's only one nation state in that "elite" category.

Yep. The Iranian regime isn't any less about self preservation than the rest of us.  They want nukes to keep us out and maintain control.  They won't be using them on us, Israel, or anyone else.  In 50 years of this regime, has a single leader ever put himself intentionally in harm's way?  Martyrdom is for other suckers.  Nobody is using nukes.  This is all about them being able to maintain control and continue to treat their own people like shit in perpetuity while also funding small scale thorns in the side of Saudi Arabia and Israel.  That sucks, but it really isn't our problem.  If Israel wants to topple the regime and stir shit up, then they can do it on their own dime.  They can also "nation build" on their own dime, put their own boots on the ground in Iran and try to manage their own puppet state.

We know who the Iranian regime is.  We know what they do, and we even know their limits.  We don't know anything about the next regime or tribal clusterfuck.

Edited by FondrenRoad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 Israel has 100+ nukes that they've never used.  They have a military that has proven on multiple occasions is capable of wiping out their enemies and taking land.  Yet Israel has given back land, allows muslims to live and vote inside Israel...even holding elected office.  They treat women as people and don't throw gays off buildings. 

but they do treat the Palestinians like shit then act like nothing wrong is going on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Artificial Iverson said:

but they do treat the Palestinians like shit then act like nothing wrong is going on.

They treat all Palestinians as potential terrorists, which is highly ironic considering the role of terrorism and terrorists in the formation of the modern state of Israel.

Edited by David Dennison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saying "death to" in Farsi is like when we say "fuck" or "damn" or "to Hell with" some country or group. So when they say "Death to America," what they're saying is "Fuck the United States." But it figures that the superficial and simple-minded easily confuse political rhetoric by a populace with operative policy by the government. For Americans to believe that is akin to Iranians believing that because Trump supporters chanted "lock her up" at his rallies, Hillary Clinton gets knocks on her door daily by law enforcement officials.

Semantics aside, given our history of meddling with that country, is anyone really surprised? And again, those are chants by the population, not government policy. It's beyond confusion to conflate those two. It's kinda like when our resident morons kept bitching about Ahmadinejad launching nuclear missiles at Israel when he had neither the power nor the access to do so even if Iran possessed such weaponry (which they clearly didn't and still may not even at this moment).

In 1951, for the first time, they legitimately, democratically elected a prime minister who ran on a campaign of nationalization, namely of its oil industry. He was basically the Persian version of Nasser in Egypt or Ataturk in Turkey.

The CIA and MI6 tried to connect their leader, Mosaddegh, to the Soviet Union via what they called "black documents" or "black propaganda," meaning they just flat out made shit up and tried to pass it off as legit via phony pamphlets, books, newspaper articles in the foreign press, etc in order to whip up Western hysteria against him. In that infamous coup, they successfully overthrew Mosaddegh, then installed Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who immediately moved to construct a KGB-like secret police force known as the SAVAK, who specialized in Nazi-style torture techniques against political dissidents. Pahlavi was a lot like Stalin in that it seemed that his "enemies list" just seemed to grow and grow. He basically believed that the KGB was omniscient. Regardless, the propaganda still worked for decades and everyone was bemoaning how "that poor man" had to come to the US to receive cancer treatment near the end of his useless life and they were also bemoaning how Iranians "chose that time" to revolt.

So Iranians had to endure that cocksucker for 26 years, they didn't have another Mossadegh to look up/forward to because the independent nationalist movement in the Middle East was basically destroyed a year before during the Camp David Agreements, so they turned to the clerics, who were the only entity that had the capability to spearhead a revolution to take down the Shah. I'm sure a lot of Iranians who were alive at the time regret supporting them beyond that overthrow, I'm sure the younger ones absolutely detest them, but the people of Iran needed them at the time because however bad they have it now, 1953-1979 was an abject nightmare to which they never want to return, which is why they don't show near the contempt for their government the way they did for the Shah's. 

They've had to endure one or another version of a living hell beginning August 15th 1953, and dickheads like Sack and Cyclone apparently think it inappropriate that they show animosity to one of the antagonists of that fateful day? Holy shit, talk about fucking snowflakes.

As to this spurious notion of their leadership being "suicidal," there's absolutely no reason to believe that. In fact, the US government was so confident in that assertion that it asserted the exact opposite. They've been saying things like "Since the revolution, Iran's first priority has consistently remained the survival of the regime" for years. Survival is the opposite of suicide. I shouldn't have to explain that to presumably intelligent people.

The Pentagon has also noted that to "ensure regime survival, Iran's security strategy is based first on deterring an attack. For years it has publicly discussed its "20-Million Man Army" and its asymmetric warfare doctrine as deterrents to any would-be invader."

And of course regarding nukes, the DoD noted "Iran's nuclear program and its willingness to keep open the possibility of developing nuclear weapons is a central part of its deterrent strategy."

So Fox and Friends likes to tell people that the Iranian government is rabidly pursuing nuclear weapons in order to "wipe Israel off the map," as the ridiculous myth read at that time, and will soon threaten the United States with same as well.

Meanwhile the Department of Defense says that the Iranian regime is intent on survival and utilizes a defensive military posture that relies on deterrence, and that any hypothetical pursuits to nuclear weapons is but a means to achieve that exact end. They also claim, tacitly, that Iran knows full well that if they even armed a nuclear-tipped missile with the intent to deliver it in Israel or the US, they'd be wiped out in 30 seconds.

So you can believe one of two things: you can believe the very detailed studies done by people whose job it is to surveil Iran (Iran is under more surveillance than any country in the world), or you can believe American infotainment networks and bloggers whose jobs are to attract viewers by any means necessary. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Yeah, Iran looked hellish during the 60s and 70s.

Was a much better place to live with more freedom¬†under Khomeini and his progeny.ÔĽŅ

That's a straw man and I'm not the slightest bit interested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, hpslugga said:

That's a straw man and I'm not the slightest bit interested.

It was a direct fucking response to you stating this "because however bad they have it now, 1953-1979 was an abject nightmare to which they never want to return"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you not only have shit reading comprehension, you also read very selectively. That was the only sentence that you even bothered to reply to, and you didn't even understand that.

"however bad they have it now"=it's bad now. The word "however" refers to the shift in the way the Iranian government implements its oppressive practices. Under the Shah, it was political dissidents and . Under the clerics, it's non-Muslims and those who reject the authority of the Ayatollah. Neither is better, they are just different. 

"1953-1979 was an abject nightmare to which they never want to return"=1953-1979 was an abject nightmare. 

Only a demented mind would ever assume that I was presenting those two realities as a false choice which Iran that Iranians would rather live in. Hell, only a demented mind would ever want to discuss such a ghastly choice. If you asked any living Iranian who was born in 1935 or before "if you could go back to any era of your country's history in terms of freedom and prosperity, which would it be?" they would unhesitatingly choose 1951 right up until August 14 (or so) 1953. The choice you present is like when some douchebag from the New York Post asked Norman Finkelstein some insipid nonsense to the effect of "isn't throwing white phosphorous on a crowded hospital morally superior to spraying napalm on a bunch of people?"

Either way, your selective and piss poor reading of that sentence will do you 0 favors because anyone with a brain stem could read what I said before (which you carefully omitted), which was that I openly conceded that they (especially the young) hate the clerics but that they needed them at the time.  No one could have possibly predicted that things would have gotten this bad, but something was needed at the time to get rid of that fucker.

I write a post that contains 875 words, you focussed, very poorly, on 20 (2.2%) of those.

I assert (correctly) that life in Iran for the ~37,250,000 people who lived there was terrible between 1953-1979, you show pictures of around 80 people (.0002% of the population).

And you wonder why I say that people like you are superficial. That wasn't a "direct fucking response" to anything.

Edited by hpslugga
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Johnny Sack said:

It was a direct fucking response to you stating this "because however bad they have it now, 1953-1979 was an abject nightmare to which they never want to return"

 

2 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

Yeah, Iran looked hellish during the 60s and 70s.

Was a much better place to live with more freedom under Khomeini and his progeny.

shah-iran-tehran-students-copy.jpg

 

shah-iran-students-copy.jpg

 

shah-iran-dancing-copy.jpg

 

iran-shah-car.jpg

 

shah-iran-lake-copy.jpg

 

shah-iran-pool-copy.jpg

You know people in Iran can do all of those things now, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

 

You know people in Iran can do all of those things now, right?

Seriously you could find people doing shit like that in El Salvador in 1980. That doesn’t mean it was a remotely acceptable place for the average person to call home.

Edited by hpslugga
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

14 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

 

You know people in Iran can ÔĽŅdo all of those things now, right?

 

 

Google image search "Iran Beach Party 2018" doesn't yield a single fap worthy result. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know more than a few Iranians here in Houston. They all preferred the Shah era over the Khomeini era.  The women especially. None were alive in 53 to offer that comparison.  

I believe the Shah era was much better than the post Revolution era. I guess you guys disagree. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

I know more than a few Iranians here in Houston. They all preferred the Shah era over the Khomeini era.  The women especially. None were alive in 53 to offer that comparison.  

I believe the Shah era was much better than the post Revolution era. I guess you guys disagree. 

Is an authoritarian monarchy better than a democratically elected government? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Is an authoritarian monarchy better than a democratically elected government? 

It can be. But I’m comparing Shah v. Khomeini. Neither were democratically elected. 

Venezuela fucked their country with democratic elections. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

It can be. But I’m comparing Shah v. Khomeini. Neither were democratically elected. 

Venezuela fucked their country with democratic elections. 

There probably wouldn't have been a revolution but for the idiots at the CIA and MI6.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Is an authoritarian monarchy better than a democratically elected government? 

Sadly, Democracy doesn’t really work well in the Middle East yet because the lines between the State and Religion are not well defined.

Some countries would elect Osama bin Laden types if they were on the ballot.

Point is we should probably push the liberal democratic values/ideals first before forcing free society style democracy by force or insurrection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

I know more than a few Iranians here in Houston. They all preferred the Shah era over the Khomeini era.  The women especially. None were alive in 53 to offer that comparison.  

I believe the Shah era was much better than the post Revolution era. I guess you guys disagree.¬†ÔĽŅ

Pretty sure it was the elite who got out of Dodge after the Shah was deposed. Of course, they preferred it when he was in power because they benefitted most from his system. Of course, looking at the photos above, I'm guessing those were the 1%ers of their day. The average Iranian was pretty fucking pissed at the Shah due to perceived corruption and political oppression/brutality. It's pretty much the same story in every authoritarian regime that we (the West) propped up during the Cold War - most of them ended badly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Pretty sure it was the elite who got out of Dodge after the Shah was deposed. Of course, they preferred it when he was in power because they benefitted most from his system. Of course, looking at the photos above, I'm guessing those were the 1%ers of their day. The average Iranian was pretty fucking pissed at the Shah due to perceived corruption and political oppression/brutality. It's pretty much the same story in every authoritarian regime that we (the West) propped up during the Cold War - most of them ended badly. 

You think Khomeini wasn’t authoritarian?  You think he tolerated dissent?

The Shah kept a lot of asshole religious zealots in line by oppressing them.  

Women were much better off

Link to comment
Share on other sites

√ó
√ó
  • Create New...