Israeli Roulette

Is Netanyahu serious about bombing Iran?


Israeli Roulette
by Trita Parsi

Should the latest episode of Israeli calls for bombing Iran be taken seriously, or is it – like the many cases prior to it – yet another (politically motivated) false alarm? Like clockwork, Israeli alarm bells have gone off in the past fifteen years with predictable regularity. Bellicose statements by Israeli officials have been followed by alarmist analyses describing military measures as both necessary and inevitable. And then, without any explanation, the bellicosity recedes and Iran and Israel return to their more normal levels of animosity.

By now, as WikiLeaks documents show, U.S. officials tend to view the Israeli threats as a pressure tactic to get the United States and Europe to adopt tougher measures against Iran, and to refrain from any compromise with Tehran over the nuclear issue. These intense periods of Israeli warnings about its imminent intent to bomb Iran have indeed tended to coincide with times when the international community has been debating additional sanctions on Tehran.

This latest call for war is no different.

Next week, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is due to publish a report expected to detail evidence on the Iranian government's suspected past weaponization activities. The Obama administration and the French government have pushed the IAEA to take a tougher line against Tehran. The IAEA report will be followed by a U.S.-EU push for harsher sanctions against Iran at the U.N. Security Council, where Western powers will meet stiff resistance from Russia and China.

The Obama administration has also launched a campaign to report the Iranian government to the Security Council due to its alleged attempt to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States. Here again, the aim is to convince a skeptical international community to go along with new sanctions.

For Israel, the tactic of threatening war to secure sanctions has been a gift that never stops giving. The Israelis press the U.S. and the European Union to opt for more sanctions by arguing that absent new punitive measures, Israel will be "forced" to strike Iran unilaterally. Washington then uses the Israeli threat to press Russia,China and the rest of the international community to adopt new sanctions topreserve the peace. The choice is, the tactic dictates, between sanctions and war; not between confrontation and diplomacy.

To retain some minimal level of credibility, each new round of saber rattling contains new elements to set it apart from previous episodes. This time around, the narrative reads that intense debates are taking place within the Israeli cabinet between proponents and opponents of unilateral Israeli strikes. What are supposed to be confidential, internal deliberations have now been leaked to the public and the whole world can follow the debate over war and peace unfold like a bizarre reality TV show.

While skepticism about Israel’s saber rattling is warranted, it is also dangerous to completely dismiss it out of hand. At a minimum, there are two important factors that indicate the past pattern of empty threats may be changing.

First, stiff resistance from the U.S. military has in the past forced Israel to think twice about any unilateral strike against Iran. Pentagon officials believe that Iran will not differentiate between an American and an Israeli attack. As such, Israeli military strikes will beget significant Iranian retaliation against American targets. In July 2008, in the midst of a massive Israeli effort to convince former President George W. Bush to attack Iran before he left office, then chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen warned that an Israeli strike on Iran would prove "extremely stressful" for U.S. forces in the region. "This is a very unstable part of the world and I don't need it to be more unstable," he cautioned.

But with President Barack Obama in election mode, Benjamin Netanyahu may sense an opening. At a time when the Republicans are attacking Obama for being insensitive to Israeli interests, Obama cannot afford another confrontation with Netanyahu. In spite of the danger Israel would put U.S. troops under if it attacked Iran, Obama’s ability to exact a political price on Israel for doing so is currently limited.

Second, as I document in A Single Roll of the Dice – Obama’s Diplomacy with Iran (Yale University Press, 2012), sanctions and military action are not either-or options in Israel’s view. Rather, they are complementary. While sanctions systematically weaken Iran and reduce its capabilities, including its ability to muster nuclear advances, military action is needed to push back Iran if it reachesimportant nuclear milestones, in Israel’s view. Sanctions can slow down Iran’s nuclear advances, but military action can set the nuclear program back, albeit only temporarily. Alone, neither approach is satisfactory for Israel. Only when the two are combined will the Jewish state feel confident that the balance of power is securely locked in its favor.

But with Washington having little left to sanction in Iran, and Israel’s credibility reaching a new low as a result of its many false alarms, how much longer can this game of brinkmanship and sable rattling be pursued before it turns into a self-fulfilling prophecy?

First published in CNN's

Dr. Trita Parsi is President of the National Iranian American Counci and the author of Treacherous Alliance – The Secret Dealings of Iran, Israel and the United States. Dr. Parsi will be releasing his upcoming book A Single Roll of the Dice – Obama's Diplomacy with Iran (Yale University Press), early 2012.


Recently by Trita ParsiCommentsDate
Bibi’s Three Steps Forward, One Back
Oct 13, 2012
Mistaken Path
Jun 22, 2012
Give Obama Elbow Room on Iran
Jun 15, 2012
more from Trita Parsi


by Mammad on

Consider me anything you want. I could not care less. You have your opinion, I have mine, which I stand by. Debating politics is not the same as taking part in a popularity contest. I am not here to win popularity.

I do hold, as I said, the VF regime partly responsible for the situation at hand vis-a-vis Israel, but in this particular case - not all cases - Israel and the U.S. have played a much bigger role in creating a crisis over practically nothing. The VF regime is far from making a nuclear bomb - if it in fact wants to make one. This is not what I say, but what

1. Meir Dagan, former Mossad head, says, and

2. the updated, but classified, U.S. national intellighence estimate of 2011 that Seymor Hirsh revealed a few months ago, said.

So, the whole noise is about "intent," rather than physical facts on the ground.

Even if the VF regime makes a few some day, it will be purely for deterrence because the regime knows well that it can never match Israel's/U.S.' nuclear arsenal, and any foolish act on their part will bring a monsterous counterattack by Israel/U.S. that will destroy Iran several times over.

If the intent of the U.S. was purely for the good of the Iranian people, I could see why some people may side with it in case of a war with Iran - I will never do so, however. But, this is not about that. It is about hegemony of the U.S. and Israel in the Middle East. I am opposed to nuclear weapons. Was, am, and will always be. But, why is it that in that region alone Pakistan, India, and Israel have the weapons and no one says anything? Is Pakistan any more stable than Iran? If anyone says yes, it would be the utter nonsense. This is a failed state in which the most radical elements control its intelligence service, have a lot of influence in its military, and the nation is equipped with up to 100 nuclear weapon.

You want to side with the U.S. in case of war? Be my guest.



Live in U.S., support attacks on its military -- who's traitor?

by AMIR1973 on

There are a couple individuals on this blog who, writing from their residences in the U.S., are expressing their support for attacks by the murderous IRGC and terrorist proxies of the IRI against U.S. military forces in the unlikely and unfortunate event of a military conflcit between the IRI terrorist regime and the U.S. These are the same individuals who refer to those that disagree with their anti-American propaganda as "traitors". Ironic, no?

G. Rahmanian

Mammad: In Case You Missed This!

by G. Rahmanian on

It is unfortunate that you find it necessary to resort to false arguments in order to prove your points. You know well the historical enmity that is widespread among Arabs has influenced the Arab mind much more deeply than Pan-Arabism which is, in fact, an empty slogan. If Arabs come together against a common enemy, in this case IR, it has very little to do with Pan-Arabism. In Iran of post-revolution, Islamists have made every effort to substitute their religious ideology for patriotism that was prevalent in the pre-revolutionary era. Their failure is due to what they have done since coming to power and Iranians' deeply-rooted patriotism. As others have suggested, the regime will not be able to benefit from a war, anymore. Unfortunately for the mullahs and their goons, times have changed and Iranians will not allow the regime to use their patriotism for its own survival. Even during the Iran-Iraq war many reluctant Iranians were forced to go to the fronts. Your argument with regards to nationalism does not hold water, either. Helping the regime to survive yet another provoked war is not nationalism, but downright treason. The regime is desperate to start a war hoping to use it in order to suppress Iranians even further. You may know that towards the end of the 8-year-long Iran-Iraq war many, including the devout Muslims, refused to send their children to the fronts. More than two decades have passed since the termination of the hostilities and the regime is hated by more Iranians. The tens of millions of Iranians who showed their resentment towards the regime in June of 2009 demonstrated the fact that it is only through force and oppressive measure that the regime can ensure the prolongation of its murderous existence. The fear-mongering rhetoric employed by some Iranians such as yourself only proves the shallowness of your understanding of the situation in Iran. Right or wrong millions of Iranians will even welcome targeted bombing of IR's military bases and other sensitive locations. Not that they are unpatriotic or hate their country, but simply because they want the regime gone. If Iranians could bring down the regime on their own, they would have done so a long time ago. Their willingness to accept a military attack by foreign forces, should be entirely blamed on the ruthlessness of the Islamist regime in Tehran. Iranians in general hate wars because they know what wars entail. They are not warmongers by any means, but they are fed up with the brutalities perpetrated by the regime added to the lack of democratic freedoms and absence of basic human rights. They are tired of saying they are used to the situation. They have said so for more than three decades now. What you saw in June of 2009 had much less to do with the fraudulent presidential election than with Iranians venting their long-repressed anger on a regime that has taken away Iranian citizens' every social and political right. There had been talks of such uprisings by people before the summer of two years ago. Some were even talking about autumn of 2008. The rigged elections only gave people the needed excuse to take to the streets and voice their resentment against the regime. Even the so-called, green leaders were taken by surprise only because they had no idea how hated the regime was. So, instead of writing the same tired old comments about how bad a war or sanctions are, start writing about how Iranians should get rid of the criminals in power in Iran. Attacking Iranians who don't agree with you, on this site, and trying to scare them off by talking about an "imminent war," will not get you anywhere. If and when the US government decides to unleash a war against IR, no Iranian organization will be able to stop it.

Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Dear Rastgoo

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on


I am not trying to support an attack on Iran. But the truth is that if it were to happen the missiles are the first to be taken out. Israel by itself is not capable of doing so. It will require American power.

That is why Israel has not done anything because USA is not ready. But if America does get ready it will go in hard and take out the missiles first thing. American forces have Iran surrounded from West; South and East. They will move their ships out of Iranian missile range. Because the ships are the most vulnerable things. American missiles have greater range and accuracy than Iran. America pick off the whole Iranian missiles; Air Force and air defenses. 

Remember America took out Saddam and he was not able to do a damn thing. Results will be very similar in Iran. I doubt more than 5% of the oil fields will be attacked and fewer hit. When it comes to air and missile America is by far the leader. My advise to Iranian soldiers is: surrender or run! Do not waste your lives on a pointless war. The stupidest action for any Iranian is to fight USA to save IRI. Why get killed in a futile attempt to save a genocidal regime. 

G. Rahmanian

Defending IR By Any Excuse Is Treason!

by G. Rahmanian on

Let's hope all this is "hot air" and there won't be another war involving Iran. However, anyone who defends IR criminals by refusing to squrely put all the blame on the regime in Tehran is a traitor! Anyone who, under the pretext of defending Iran and its territorial integrity advocates siding with the regime in case a war breaks out, is either an enemy of the people of Iran or is simply ignorant! Anyone who uses the excuse of an "imminent war" while consciously ignoring the sufferings of Iranians under the rule of IR, is committing a treasonable act! Only the ignorant, traitors or demagogues would champion defending Iran under the current circumstances where Iranians are ruled by their staunchest enemy, IR, since the take over of their country by Arabs in the seventh century. It is incumbent on all patriotic Iranians and those who care about Iran and oppose IR's murderous rule to prioritize their fight against IR regardless of how many "foreign enemies" are out there planning to unleash wars against Iran. It is also the duty of all freedom-loving Iranians to expose those hypocrites who regard Iraqis siding with IR against Saddam during the 8-year war as heroes while calling patriotic Iranians, who want the regime gone, "traitors." 


War with Iran=Disaster for all

by Rastgoo on

This is my apocalyptic view.  I hope I'm wrong.  Upon an attack, Iran will no doubt unleash its arsenal of missiles on the Gulf Arab oil fields.  The Iranian oil fields will be bombed in retaliation and as such the great majority of the oil fields in the ME will be destroyed.  The world will no doubt enter into a great depression as the soaring price of oil will cause unprecedented inflation.  So much so that the Russians and the Chinese may also be dragged into this conflict.  Iran will no doubt be torn into pieces as it will suit Israel's interests of power hegemony in the ME.  The US will never be able to conquer Iran militarily even if it lands troops in Iran.  It will face fierce resistance.  Iran will be sent into dark ages and will become another Afghanistan.  Israel will descend into an even more disgraced and loathed state that it is in today and I fear the day when there would be another holocaust for the Jewish people.  One can only hope that cooler heads in Israel will prevail and stop this runaway paranoia of the Jewish state.  But I doubt it will. 




by Mammad on

Behind a fake "superpatriotic" name, the last thing on your mind, in my opinion, is Iran. If you cared about Iran, you would also care for the people of Iran. There is no meaning to caring about Iran without the two of them together.

A very large majority of Iranians are practicing Muslims, despite the crimes that have been committed in Islam's name by the VF regime. All you have to do is looking at religious occasions in Iran; Ashura, Ramazan, the Prophet's, Imam Ali's and Imam Mahdi's birthdays, etc., to see how the nation celebrates or mourns. At the same time, if you believe that religion is a private matter, you would just leave such issues alone to those who believe in the religion.

Your nonsense about Islam condoning rape is worn out, old, and a piece of trash, which has been repeated so many times. A guy named Amil Imani used to preach the same on this site! You are in no way qualified to pass judgement about such specialized issues as interpreting Quranic verses. Your goal is demonizing Musliams and Islam. Shame on you.



conflict of interest

by Mehrban on

I am wondering how is it that the head of an organization that yesterday was trying to protect Iranian Americans from racial stereo typing (specially in the case of war) is writting about Israel and war.  Isn't this some sort of a conflict of interest?

Isn't his job to stir his constituents (Iranian Americans) clear from being associated with this potential conflict in any way?    Is it just me who sees this glaring problem?!




Islam IS Rapist, read Quran

by IranFirst on

I am sorry if this is news to some, or some because of political
correctness do not  want to hear this. There are many Muslims who don't
want to hear the ugly parts (what else is there) of Islam (the parts that Al-Qaida and IRI,
beheaders and Osama use), but all the killing and terrorism ARE main
parts of Islam and Sanctioned in Quran.

Islam allows rape of
slaves and prisoners.. This has been used numerous time by Muslim
Savages though out history and by child molester Mohamad himself and
more recently by IRI in Iran.

Fred is Correct calling IRI Islamic Rapists. IRI is raping poisoners, following their cult of Islam.

See references from Quran and Hadith.  


Verse 4:24 Also
(forbidden are) women already married, except those whom your right
hands possess. Thus has Allah ordained for you. All others are lawful,
provided you seek them from your property, desiring chastity, not
fornication. So with those among them whom you have enjoyed, give them
their required due, but if you agree mutually after the requirement (has
been determined), there is no sin on you. Surely, Allah is Ever
All-Knowing, All-Wise.

 What we see in the beginning of this verse as “forbidden” refers to
sexual intercourse. The Qur'an dictates, women already married are
forbidden for Muslims except those whom their right hands possess (sex
slaves). It is the ordinance of Allah.

It is obvious from this verse, a Muslim can have sexual relations with his slave-woman.
But it is important to know the context of this verse, as it sheds
light onto the nature of allowance. If we go through a Sahih Hadith in
Sunan Abu Dawud:

Abu Said al-Khudri said: "The apostle of Allah sent a military
expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met
their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them
captives. Some of the Companions of the apostle of Allah were
reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence
of their husbands who were unbelievers.
So Allah, the Exalted, sent
down the Quranic verse, "And all married women (are forbidden) unto you
save those (captives) whom your right hands possess". That is to say,
they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period." [The
Quran verse is 4:24]

Abu Dawud 2:2150   Here in the above hadith from Abu Dawud, we understand why the Quranic verse 4:24 was allegedly revealed to Muhammad.
It was to encourage his fighters to have sexual contacts with female
captives even while their husbands were alive as POWs. The hadith sheds
some more light on this fact, when we read: "Some of the Companions of the apostle of Allah were
reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence
of their husbands who were unbelievers."

The Abu Dawud hadith is confirmed by the two Sahih collections,
namely Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. There is a chapter devoted to
this in the Sahih Muslim collection. The title of the chapter speaks in
volumes as we read:

Sahih Muslim. Chapter 29: Title: It is permissible to have
sexual intercourse with a captive woman after she is purified of menses
or delivery. In case she has a husband, her marriage is abrogated after
she becomes captive.




mirror image of IRI ,when comes to lying..

by darius on


When comes to crying wolf, fabrication Israel and IRI   are mirror image of each others. History has very little sympathy for these kind

of behavior. Give them  a hand , show them the way .




Veiled Prophet of Khorasan


by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on


I said nothing about a "good" vs. "bad" aggressor. I said that fighting head on against USA is a losing matter. Show me one army that has won a head on match with America in recent years.

Regarding pressure yes I think we could do it. If we put our forces into it. Do you really think if benefits USA to create a Sunni terror group? Isn't Taliban enough they need Jundallah to be attacking USA? We need to show USA the need for a strong Iran.

If instead of in fighting and attacking one another we work together it is possible. Academics like yourself are in a position to educate American politicians. Show them a strong Iranian power is to their very own benefit.

America does not do anyone favors. But if they think that Iranian power will keep the trouble makers in check they will support it. Just as they did for decades before IRI came.

Jimmy Carter made a mistake America need not keep repeating it. Plus Saudi is far less reliable than a friendly and strong Iran. 

My proposal has been to show this to American. You don't agree that is your right.



by Mammad on

Where do you live? In fantasy land?

Pressure the U.S. to preserve Iran's integrity? If Iran becomes 100 percent democratic over night, the U.S. will still be after it, if the new government is independent of the U.S. The U.S. does not give a hoot to whether Iran is democratic or not, or whether human rights are respected in Iran or not. At this very moment the U.S. is violating the HR of millions of people around the world.

Britain, the U.S., Israel, and Saudi Arabia, among others, have wanted to break up Iran for at least two decades. Which country supports Jundallah? SA, and the U.S. Which country supports UAE bogus claim to the three Persian Gulf islands? SA. Which country calls Persian Gulf the "Arabian Gulf?" The U.S. Which country supports Kurdish separatists? Israel. Which country supports the "Arabs" of Khuzestan to set up "Arbistan?" Britain. Which country may carry Israel's water, as it has been for decades, and bomb Iran? The U.S. and Britain.

And your proposition that Iranian soldiers should surrender in a hypothetical war with the U.S. is pathetic, no disrespect is meant. First of all, the U.S. will never ever invade Iran. It will need half a million soldiers just to take Tehran. Secondly, even if it did, the rag tag Taliban has pinned down the "mighty" U.S. and NATO for a decade, and NATO commanders do not see any end to the war. Iran, with nearly 80 million people, a lot of weapons, an asymmetric warfare strategy second to none, and sitting in the most strategic region of the world, should just give up because Israel or the U.S. say so and want so?

As much as I hate the VF regime and hold it partly responsible for the situation at hand, I am in total agreement with Mehrdad: Any attack by any nation on Iran must be responded to with full force and without any hesitation, including attacks on any U.S. allies in the region that might allow such a crime takes place using their airspace, land, waters, and bases. The aggressor must be published.

Let Israel's supporters go back to Israel, join its armed forces, and fight with Iran. Let those who are salivating for a U.S. attack on Iran join the Pentagon, and fight in a war with Iran. Every nation has some turncoats and spies, including Iran. And the turncoats and spies are not just MKO; there are several on this website alone, who hide behind fake names and advocate war.

As far as I am concerned, a true nationalist does not differentiate between "good" aggressor and bad aggressor. An aggressor is an aggressor and must be punished.


Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Mehrdad Jan

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on


Two things one serious and one joke:

  • Joke: I think America would have done better under the British flag.
  • Serious: The balance of forces was different then. America was  a far better match for Britain. However they even then did not go for a frontal assault. Because they knew they will lose. Nor did they attack British mainland. The opted for guerrilla warfare.  A head on fight is sure death for Iranians.

I will give you another example of Shapur Sassanid vs Romans. At one point a large group of Romans had invaded Iran when Shapur was king. He knew his troops had no chance in a head on fight. He opted for hit and run and ran down the Romans.

That allowed Shapur to keep most of his "asavaran" i.e. cavalry in tact. In a while Romans got run down and demoralized. In a foreign land without support. They asked for be allowed to return to Rome.. Shapur said fine and that was it.


VPK jaan: with that sort of posture….

by Bavafa on

Americans would still be under the British flag

At least part of Iran would be under Iraqi flag

Life is great, but only if it is with dignity.  

'Hambastegi' is the main key to victory 



Trita's narrative

by robertborden54 on

What I enjoy about Trita's analyses is that they are based on a set narrative where Iran is almost completely absent except as a vicitm.  According to Trita, America and Israel are perpetrators of imbecility and evil-doing in the international arena while poor Iran is sitting there doing nothing particularly noteworthy.  This narrative appeals to a certain segment of Trita's wetern audience and is consistent with the worldview from Tehran.  I am by no means making an accusation that Trita is an agent of the IRI.  I am saying from the point of view of someone sitting at the Ministry of Intelligence in Iran, this piece could be seen as useful in so far as the analysis attempts to soften the anti-IRI line of reasoning and provide talking points to various sympathetic opinion makers in the West.  

Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

One thing missed

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on


I missed this post by my good friend Mehrdad.

If the war breaks out, I do wish and support full retaliation against the attacking nation.

If the attacker is America I disagree completely because it will bring disaster on Iran. My advise to the soldiers it to drop your guns and surrender. The Iranian military has no chance against a full American attack. Why die for nothing or worse to preserve the Mullahs. All you are doing is giving the Mullahs a chance to pack up and run. Do not waste your lives in a fight you will not win. Instead save your necks so that your family has you. The wise person knows when to fight and when to run.

Tiger Lily


by Tiger Lily on

That's quite an  interesting paper to read, although, unless I missed it during skimming through, it missed out on a few ideological influences. Very interesting to read their point of view though. Thank you.

I dunno. Fred's never called me any of those things and correctly so, most probably because he knows I'm more of a smoochy than a moochy type. hehe


P.S. What a weird article by Parsi, listing strategies and calling it roulette. Makes no sense whatsoever.

Hafez for Beginners

this article

by Hafez for Beginners on

Thanks MM: (and Tiger Lily): for pointing to "Islamist" meaning politics - "Islam" in contrast, being a religion -  but people do freely use the term as a racist slure  and my objection was to "Islamist Rapists" - as no politician worth his salt, would use that kind of rhetoric. I come to this site to learn, and would rather folks, instead of throwing around verbal abuse,  set forth some logical arguments.

Don't mean to detract from this article either: It's intelligent - and I learned something from it. I won't say more, as people on this site come and slander you if you do. (while they happen to be the one's complaining about Democracy, and "free speech" - that's the biggest irony of all.)




Tiger Lily / Hafez for beginners

by MM on

I tend to agree with the classification of Islamist (political Islam) vs. Muslim (private Islam) (* See e.g., Boroumand sisters' article below), and I was even told by some Iranians that "maa mosalmaan hasteem, vali eslaami neesteem".  However, there are those on IC, e.g., mini-Fereydoon, who label anyone who do not agree with him or Bibi as Islamist......, and basically the Islamist label is used as a condescending way of talking down the opposing views.

* Terror, Islam, And Democracy - Boroumand, Ladan.,Boroumand, Roya. //


Ruling mullahs are issue for modern world

by Siavash300 on

"war thereat" is not something new. First we expereiced it when shah died and Saddam invaded to Iran.  We have been suffered since day one when these Islamic monsters took power in Iran. So misery for our nation is not something new.  Now, question is what this group NIAC did so far to overthrow mullahs from power in Iran. They keep talking about Israel, mossad, CIA, MI6, Obama etc, nothing has ever been said by Trista and his buddies about stinky mullahs who are sucking the blood of our nation for last 32 years and how we get rid of them.  Obama clearly said: we don't allow Iran reach in nuclear power in any cost. Message was crystal clear. What part of this message Trita or his comrades don't understand. Noway,they allow Islamic monsters reach to that atomic bomb for the sake of humanity. I am just shocked that some people don't get it. They take Obama's speech lightly. They view it as a "hot air". It has been said 2 years ago when Obama took the office. It has nothing to do with democratic or republicans as the writer of this blog says. Both U.S parties can't tolerate the enemy of humanity regardless of small differences in their views. What part is consfusing? I don't understand.  They will start bombing sooner or later as long as these mullahs are on power and want nuclear power. Soon we have to witness the loss of our brothers and sisters because of Arabs whom we historically hate. Sooner or later we will see our country men and women lay in blood because of some arabs in southern Lebanon. How stupid it can be? Now, some people carry doctora degree in the front of their names and are not able to comprehend  this simple fact. That really shocks me.

The intellegent soltution to all these "war threat" from Saudi, Israel, U.S and any other establishments is to get rid of these stinky monsters in Iran as soon as possible. If NIAC wants to do something they have to expadiate that process before boombing starts. World will be more safer and better place to live without these Islamic crimanals. Now, once we accomplish that mission,  NIAC can find better pay job in our new establishment. 

Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Dear Friends:

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on


  • Fanoos: you are rigbt. They have gone all the way.
  • Mehrdad: When we  I get a fire extinguisher it does not mean I gave up on preventing fire. But I have 6 of them at home to be ready just if it happened.

The one thing I know is that I am not powerful enough to prevent a war. Plus I want IRI gone. If America decides to have a war it will and nothing I do will change it. But I do not know if they have decided to have a war.  Honesty I do not know it.

If that is too horrible for you to contemplate then don't. But remember IRI is painting itself in a position where it just might. If I were to guess it would be in the second term of Obama or first term of a Republican.  But who knows.


I wonder what is worse

by Bavafa on

The anti-American, anti Semite


being a messenger, in effect a mercenary, of the evil powers?!?!?!


This was my last response as I do not see you worth my time


'Hambastegi' is the main key to victory 



VPK: I know you mean well…

by Bavafa on

But with your advocacy, it very well seem you have already given up on the effort in preventing the war to start with.  How can I even think about after mate if I have not put all my effort in preventing it to start with.The war will not be to bring democracy to Iran, so how can I expect to influence it to change their main objectives.


'Hambastegi' is the main key to victory 


P.S. To count on the "one million vote" is a bit of dreaming wouldn't you think so.  If we are to use IC as a sample, it is very obvious how divided we are and how in-effective we are when it comes to defending Iraninas. 


VPK dear, I'm afraid you are right.

by fanoos on

I'm afraid you are right. This is the final curtain in the long going between IRI and West theater.

War is unfortunate but inevitable!

The pendulum of IRI has swung all the way to the right where there is no place for it go except coming down! 

Ding Dong, Ding Dong,...,Ding Dong,.....! Ding......! And, finally Dong!


Hafez for Beginners

Beginner lesson for Fred

by Hafez for Beginners on



Beginner Lesson for Fred on "SEMITES":

Islamists can't be "anti-semitic", Fred.  Any "Beginner" - that you thought you were insulting me with -  anyone in the beginning, middle or top, with an IQ highter than 2 - knows BOTH Arabs and Jews are Semitic people, my dear sir.

And yes, "Islamist" may be a recently coined political term - but I have yet to see ONE legitimate leader in the US use the term "Islamist Rapists" with free abandon. They don't. For good reason. 

Hafez for Beginners


by Hafez for Beginners on

"Beginner":  I love being a "beginner" Fred. To some Iranians it's an insult, to me, it's an honorable state - being in touch with "Beginnings" is a profound place to be. You'd insult me more if you called me an "expert" - 

US Leadership: All I know is that a US leader will not ever use "Islamist Rapist" -  in their discourse.  If the leadership in this country I love chooses not to, that's good enough for me. With your permission, the "Beginner" will follow their model. 

Tiger Lily


by Tiger Lily on

The term "Islamist" refers to Political Islam, not any country's Muslim population. In effect, your post created an injustice towards the "Islamic " /Muslim population.

To my mind, it is very important for us all to make the clear distinction.


Mooching crop dusters

by Fred on

The anti-American, anti-Semite Islamist Palestinian crop dusters need to stop mooching off the Iranian people and start earning a living.

Veiled Prophet of Khorasan


by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on


With over a million voters; NIAC; PAIAA we do have influence. That is what I keep saying. Yes we may not be able to prevent a war but may influence it. What do you propose we do just sit and do nothing?

First oppose a war but what if that does not work? What is your plan after it. A wise person does not rely on a single result. Just like they have parachutes. No one wants a place to crash but you take a parachute just in case. In Iraq USA has:

  • Allowed for democratic elections; not perfect but better than nothing.
  • Did not break the nation apart given Iraqi are far more divided a Iran.
  • Booted the charlatan Chalebi when it became obvious he was no good.

Is this too much to ask? What scares me is that we have no fallback position. Once again: I don't want war. But if there is one we might as well get the best result.


Dear Hafez for Beginners: With all due respect....

by Bavafa on

I know you are not new to IC, thus my surprise to read and expect anything other than hate and propaganda from Fred

"Write something intelligent, opposing even, to make the discourse healthy -  rather than throwing in the "Islamist Rapists" nonsense"

What you are suggesting is to employ logic and respect from a person with good and honorable intention.  I hope you are able and successful in your attempt and recommendation though I remain skeptic.

'Hambastegi' is the main key to victory