Comments on: On Iran, Obama‚Äôs bigger challenge is with his allies Tue, 30 Sep 2014 12:44:03 +0000 hourly 1 By: Truth559 Fri, 18 Oct 2013 05:01:23 +0000 Its interesting how the media in general is equating countries sworn to Americas destruction with forces sworn to defend it. As if any sustainable progress in the direction of peace with them is possible. The author’s most important prerequisite, as so many journalists in America now, is ignorance. Which he/they were educated into. To quote a sworn enemy as a reliable and trustworthy source for character analysis is naive at best. And unspeakable at its worst. The guidance of such journalist is equivalent to that of a pills-bury dough boy. Which also shows the depth of the problems in America. The masses have been trained to consume food “products” that are unhealthy via food additives (which are really just drugs) and convenience. And the resultant illnesses are treated with phamasudicals., which only mask the problem and ultimately further the illness in the body (typically). So the integrity (physical, emotional, mental) of the people has decreased, to the point where the majority can no longer interpret who the real enemy is: their own corruption via arrogance. Which has caused them to believe lies to the point of electing the embodiment of corruption: Barry Oblasphemous. As if corruption and integrity are “substitutively equivalent”. Which is the precondition necessary for tyranny.

By: CharlesParisFR Wed, 16 Oct 2013 11:59:20 +0000 Obama is a naif, willing to sell friends and allies for the unlikely possibility that the current Iranian regime will warm to America. His actions are based on his campaign theme of Hope, the same reason that he was prematurely awarded the Nobel Peace prize shortly after taking office. His headlong rush into the arms of the ayatollahs foretells a disastrous outcome.

By: Wantunbiasednew Wed, 16 Oct 2013 09:18:23 +0000 Wants and needs of Middle East countries.
Israel – really badly needs water. That is why Israel backs US/Saudi foreign intervention in Syria. If government of Syria is toppled, and country is flooded with anarchy (like for instance Libya 2 years ago) Israel could get Golan Heights plus more Syrian/Libanian territory which is abundant in water.
Saudi Arabia – it is a simple exchange: SA sells oil in US dollar, United States backs its absolutistic hereditary monarchy. Even 9/11 or open Al-Quaida sponsorship by Saudi oligarchs has not changed this.
Saudi Arabia also wants to dominate Middle East. But they have serious Human Resources problem. Saudi economy is totally oil based and staffed by skilled foreign workers. The only other candidates to MENA dominance were: Iraq (after 2004 war a non issue) and Iran.
Iran – they like SA want to dominate Middle East.
In fact Iran build sustainable, diversified modern economy. It is the only country in MENA that has skilled workforce and economy the least dependent on oil exports (they are at a pretty good shape at low level oil exports in the range of 1,5 m bpd and all these sanctions).
Somehow Iranians were not good at pursuit of their Grand Strategy – Middle East dominance, in latest 15 years.
But it has changed. Of course they will not build nuclear weapons. But to cease the sanctions and let the economy thrive they would probably completely fulfill any requirements on international community, at least for the next 20 years. It would be sth like Syrian plan under sponsorship of Russia and China. They would get significant Chinese investments in oil industry in return and sell a lot oil in any currency bar US dollars.
United States and Israel will try to destroy any such agreement. It is not in US interest to watch calmly when oil is sold in other currencies and for Israel to watch strong Iran backs Syria, Liban and Iraq (I 100% understand Israel position, for water anybody would do the same). It is real politik.

By: delta5297 Wed, 16 Oct 2013 03:41:28 +0000 Don’t get me wrong, I think having Iran as a partner rather than an adversary would be great. But aren’t we perhaps getting a bit overly optimistic here? Iran’s hardliners most likely oppose a deal, and even moderate Iranian leaders seem reluctant to curb their country’s nuclear enrichment. Meanwhile, with AIPAC’s lobbying it’s unlikely Congress will allow any lifting of sanctions…though perhaps with some arm-twisting Obama could get Democrats to go along.

I suppose if ordinary Iranians want to have their country’s international standing elevated and some measure of “national dignity” restored, that could be arranged. We could pull out all our military forces from the Persian Gulf region and lift all sanctions, in return for Iran ceasing all uranium enrichment…after all since when does national pride require a nuclear enrichment program? But on the other hand, would Khamenei ever allow such a rapprochement to occur?