The bluff that never stops giving?

Netanyahu and threat of bombing Iran


The bluff that never stops giving?
by Trita Parsi

In an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic, incoming Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed to have told President Barack Obama that either America stops Iran or Israel will. Not surprisingly, the interview sparked quite a controversy and only a day later, General David Petreus told the Senate Arms Services Committee that "the Israeli government may ultimately see itself so threatened by the prospect of an Iranian nuclear weapon that it would take preemptive military action to derail or delay it."

So once again, in spite of President Obama's best efforts, the military option was put back on the table and the atmosphere for dealing with Iran was turned into "Do as we say - or else..." Even if the President wants to give diplomacy a chance, disbelievers have been quick to limit Obama's options by seeking to set arbitrary deadlines for negotiations - or by threatening Israeli military action if America doesn't act with its military might.

Reality is, however, that talk of an Israeli military option is more of a bluff than a threat - but it is a bluff that never seems to stop giving.

Israel does not have the military capability to successfully eliminate Iran's nuclear program. Even the most successful bombing campaign would only set back the known program for a few years - without affecting any potential clandestine program. This is not classified information. Military experts are well aware of Israel's capabilities - and its limits.

Yet, the threat of military action, or rather the bluff, serves a purpose: Threats of military action militarizes the atmosphere. It creates an environment that renders diplomacy less likely to succeed - it may even prevent diplomacy from being pursued in the first place.

In the Iranian case, Netanyahu's tough talk undermines the Obama administration's prospects for diplomacy in the following ways.

Getting to the negotiating table has proven an arduous task for the US and Iran. Both sides are currently testing each other's intentions, asking themselves if the other side is serious about diplomacy or if the perceived desire for talks is merely a tactical maneuver to either buy time or build greater international support for more confrontational policies down the road. From Tehran's perspective, uncertainty about Washington's intentions during the Bush administration was partly fueled by the insistence of the military option remaining on the table. Tehran seemed to fear entering negotiations that could have been designed to fail, since that could strengthen the case for military action against Iran.

Today, talk of Israeli strikes has similar effects. Tehran has repeatedly failed to appreciate the policy differences between Washington and Tel Aviv, oftentimes seeing them as either a perfectly coordinated team or as a single entity. Consequently, explicit or implicit threats of Israeli military action reduce Tehran's confidence in Washington's intentions.

Furthermore, Iran's sense of a threat from the US (and in extension Israel) is believed to be one of the driving forces of Iran's nuclear program. Whether Iran seeks a weapon or a civilian program that provides Iran with a weapons capability, the program's existence provides Tehran with a level of deterrence against the perceived US threat. The Obama administration's approach seems to have been to reduce Iran's sense of threat in order to kick-start negotiations. The threat of Israeli military action does the opposite - it fuels Iranian insecurity and closes the window for diplomacy.

Moreover, Israel uses this threat to pressure Washington and the EU to act tough. This has been a cornerstone of Israeli policy towards Iran since the mid-1990s. Even though Israel is reluctant to put itself on the frontline against Iran, fearing that this would counter its message that Iran is the world's and not just Israel's problem, it also fears that the absence of Israeli pressure would cause the West to go soft on Iran. Hence, Israel keeps the pressure on the West - by threatening military action - in order for the West to keep pressuring Iran. However, under the current circumstances, Israeli pressure may compel the Obama administration to adopt a confrontational approach that is incompatible with the diplomatic strategy President Obama seems to prefer.

Finally, Netanyahu - as well as hawks in Washington - are using the threat of Israeli military action to create arbitrary deadlines for negotiations with Tehran combined with exaggerated expectations of what diplomacy must achieve. The message of Israeli hawks has been that it can only afford to give diplomacy "a few months," meaning that whatever sanctions and confrontation has failed to achieve with Iran in the past 30 years, must miraculously be obtained after only a few months of negotiations - otherwise Israel will take military action.

This logic does two things. First, it brings us back to the foreign policy approach of the Bush administration in which diplomacy was treated with suspicion and skepticism, and military confrontation was viewed as a policy option with guaranteed success. Second, it ensures that diplomacy fails by denying it the time and space it needs to succeed and by setting the bar too high.

This does not mean that Israel does not have legitimate reasons to fear Iran's nuclear advances - on the contrary. But what lies at the heart of Israel's maneuvers is not necessarily the fear of a nuclear clash, but the regional and strategic consequences nuclear technology in Iranian hands will have for Israel.

In spite of its rhetoric, Israel views the regime in Tehran as rational, calculating and risk-averse. Even those Israeli officials who believe that Iran is hell-bent on destroying the Jewish state recognize that Tehran is unlikely to attack Israel with nuclear weapons due to the destruction Israel would inflict on Iran through its second-strike capability.

The real danger a nuclear-capable Iran brings with it for Israel is twofold. First, an Iran with nuclear capability will significantly damage Israel's ability to deter militant Palestinian and Lebanese organizations. Gone would be the days when Israel's military supremacy would enable it to dictate the parameters of peace and pursue unilateral peace plans.

This could force Israel to accept territorial compromises with its neighbors in order to deprive Iran of points of hostility that it could use against the Jewish state. Israel simply would not be able to afford a nuclear rivalry with Iran and continued territorial disputes with the Arabs at the same time.

Second, the deterrence and power Iran would gain by mastering the fuel cycle could compel Washington to cut a deal with Tehran in which Iran would be recognized as a regional power and gain strategic significance in the Middle East at the expense of Israel. This has been a major Israeli fear since the end of the Cold War, when Israel's strategic utility to Washington lost considerable justification due to the absence of a Soviet threat. Under these circumstances, US-Iran negotiations could damage Israel's strategic standing, since common interests shared by Iran and the US would overshadow Israel's concerns with Tehran and leave Israel alone in facing its Iranian rival. The Great Satan will eventually make up with the ayatollahs and forget about the Jewish state, Israeli officials fear.

Netanyahu's threat of stopping Iran if Obama doesn't should be seen in light of the Israeli rights's fear of a US-Iran deal. Talk of Israeli military action has not coincided with major advances in Iran's nuclear program, but rather with hints of an American preparedness to strike a compromise with Tehran that would grant it the dreaded know-how and limit Israel's strategic maneuverability.

The flaw in the Netanyahu's approach, however, is its underestimation of how US-Iran diplomacy can significantly alter Iran's posture towards the Jewish state and reduce the threat it faces from Tehran. Therein lies the opening for Israel's new prime minister that carries far greater promise for Israel's security than efforts to complicate Washington's path towards diplomacy.

Trita Parsi is president and co- founder of the National Iranian American Council and author of "Treacherous Alliances: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States." First published in Huffington Post.


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

Look who is talking LOL

by Shamsheer (not verified) on

Nashenas agha

I am taking it so easy, and in doing so i can see who is talking like a supereme leader with all the topings. Honestly, i never analyzed farhad's comments in order to detect the level of chakhan or any form of exaggerations in them. I don't think there is any.

I hope that your "hopetimism" pays off.


don't worry Shamsheer

by Anonym7 (not verified) on

Having nukes did not cause Mosharraf to last forever, having nukes did not prevent the collapse of Soviet Union and having nukes will not prevent IRI's inevitable change, or IRI's removal altogether.
Take it easy Shamsheer_jAn, and don't let the exaggerations of Farhad chAkhAn get into you.


Farhad Frankly, i am

by Shamsheer (not verified) on


Frankly, i am speechless. I don't know what has gotten into him. he used to be a lot more gentle and softer than this. I agree with you totally.

Jenabe nashenase haft

what i said was something that has been said for years, and so i guess you will give that title to so many people. I am glad that he is where he is and doing what he does. I am not interested in the position. Thank you. I prefer sitting here with you conducting fruitful and informative conversations:)

You speak as if your nafas az jaye garm boland mishe...not realizig what the consequences and implications would be in terms of them gaining more strenght as a result of having such capability. Perhaps you will look forward to the day that they will
be coming after people, if you dare Dreaming about any form of freedom, even in your sleep. Nobody has to lift a finger or actually do anything or blog about anything. But,it is all good according to our Chief analyst, since we are protected from AIPAC and their vicious plans for our country. Interesting.


the spritual leader of Iran!

by Anonym7 (not verified) on

Shamsheer_jAn, your statements such as "... (IRI) HHAS No buisness being in power" indicates to me that you think you are the spiritual leader of Iran. Unfortunately someone (Khamenei) has unjustly occupied your position, and you need to take back your rightful place in order for those statements to make any sense!
Anyhow, as far as a I (as an ordinary person) am concerned, until IRI gets toppled by Iranians, it is IRI's business to run the country (have power). As long as IRI is in power, one of its main businesses is making sure that the country is safe from war criminals such as AIPAC, Israeli extremists, etc. And to that end it is the business of those in charge of Iran's defense to go for nukes, almost go for nukes, or not go for nukes. Personally I wish those guys total success if they have decided to go for nukes.

Farhad Kashani

Shamsheer jaan,   Very

by Farhad Kashani on

Shamsheer jaan,


Very well said!


This Anonyms7 character, like his/her other pro IRI leftist extremists buddies, like this guy Trita Parsi,  has shown many signs of inconsistency and confusion. I usually don’t respond to him/her for that reason, as he/she really sound childish.


The thing with them is that liars have a short memory. Deep inside, they are all IRI supporters, but because the vast majority of people in Iran and the world despise the IRI, they really can’t come out and say it directly. So what they do is they resort to making the anti-IRI (mostly U.S and Israel) look bad, in hope for the IRI to look as “victims” and “just” so maybe possibly it can gain more supporters. It’s a common tool among these Islamo Socialists. That how the Roger Cohen and the Jimmy Carters and the Jon Stewarts and the Baer and the Chomskys of the world have gotten brainwashed. They have bought into their argument.




by Shamsheer (not verified) on

Ananymous 7 jan.

As the saying goes... Say something ke be gonje aziz.
A regime as vicious and criminal and neglectful of the lower and middle class's living situation, and interested in cultutally revolutionizing the country... and so many other items on their agenda HHAS No buisness being in power, let alone having access to sophisticated weaponary.

Buliding nukes are not singular and isolated events that deserve garnering support, while ignoring the impact they will have in strengtening regime's hand in exerting more political and siocial and economic opression.


yes I appreciate IRI's defense of Iran (to Shamsheer)

by Anonym7 (not verified) on

Yes Shamsheer_jAn, as you correctly said I have been against many of IRI values, I have been against their appalling neglect of lower and middle class Iranians, I have been against their "cultural revolution" (i.e., cultural corruption) and force feeding Islam to people ...., but I appreciate that they have not allowed the Lords of War (AIPAC and other war criminals) turn Iran into another Iraq .... and yes, IF (only IF) IRI is building the nukes, I wish it total success in implementing deterrence.
Hope, you now know where the heck I stand.


Who needs AIPAC When Iri is doing just fine on its own.

by Shamsheer (not verified) on

Ananymous 7

Vaghean ke.

Just where the heck do you stand? on L.guilani's blog you were all... against everything the IRI has ever stood for and advocated, and yet you are cheering them on to succeed on their Moghadas nuclear mission. Yey! Go ahead, get them nukes and then let's have a chahar shanbeh soori, Islamic style.

Perhaps if you don't worry too much about appreciating Them so much, they will not get the courage and the nerve to MURDER our youngster whenever they get the urge. TAke a look at those Hanging in public videos, and see for yourself what the real meaning of being an extremist is. LOOK REAL CLOSELY.

Natalia Alvarado-Alvarez

Good question? Where is Zion?

by Natalia Alvarado-Alvarez on

She never could resist a blog/article on Israel. Didn't she change her name to tzion?


where is Zion? (to Kashani)

by Anonym7 (not verified) on

Kashani says: ".....your beloved IRI...."

Kashani_jAn, I still update my will before I travel to IRI, so I wouldn't go that far and bring love into this. However I really appreciate that IRI has not allowed AIPAC, your Israeli extremist friends, and other war criminals destroy Iran with "regime change" excuse of your former spiritual leader (W).

BTW Kashani_jAn, where is Zion? give my regards to her, tell her "Anonym7 misses you, although Kashani provides plenty of coverage for you"

anonymous fish


by anonymous fish on

it is offensive.  period.  your personal feelings towards hillary are well known.  but there is no excuse for that kind of language from a gentleman and i know you are one.  there are many MANY intelligent and educated women who admire her, one of whom is myself.  we differ on politics and that's cool... even educational and beneficial.  but please... do refrain from offensive language.  it merely reduces you to the ranks of those you criticize.

Kaveh Nouraee


by Kaveh Nouraee on

Do you expect for me to call Hillary Clinton a "lady"? That woman is the antithesis of anything related to being a lady, a diplomat, a servant of her constituents, and I could go on. Does it make a difference if I call her what she truly is without sugar-coating it or shall I affect a more professorial tone in order to more effectively convey my opinions concerning "Madame Secretary"?

She is what she is. Deal with THAT.

Why do you have this concern with "status"? Why is it so important that a country should attain a certain "status"?

That sounds like Andre Agassi when he used to do that "image is everything" schtick when his hair extensions were longer than his advancement in Grand Slam tournaments.

The U.S. has had a horrible image in the Middle East for years and that image will not change one iota, even if all of a sudden every American were to pack up and leave in the next 15 minutes and never buy another drop of oil again. Image is all the liberals believe in. All style, and to hell with substance.

Thanks for the offer for the Prep H, but no thanks. This conservative isn't just a perfect a-hole, but I have one too, and it seems that between the liberals and their bullshit ideology and people like me who aren't fooled for a second, I'm not sure which one is going to be the biggest pain in the ass, so you might want to hold on to it.

I also believe in a high-fiber diet. That's why I'm not full of it.  :-)

Kaveh Nouraee


by Kaveh Nouraee on

If I say that the 1979 revolution brought it more into the mainstream would that make you feel better?

I'm not discounting or downplaying what happened in Pakistan. If anything, it further supports the position I have long taken concerning Jimmy Carter's Middle East Cluster F**k of a foreign policy. Call that the "initial R&D testing".

The 1979 revolution in Iran was of far greater importance than Pakistan and remains so.

Agreed, Al-Qaeda and the Taliban despise Iran, Iranians, and Shia Moslems. That has nothing to do with what I said.

Kaveh Nouraee

Davood Banayan

by Kaveh Nouraee on

John Carpenter, Richard Tehrani, Jacob Cohen, Luigi Milani, or James Smith or whoever else you think you are.

Love your avatar. I bet that just the mere thought of smelling one of those wrestler's unitards after a match gives you the vapors doesn't it?

Do you think anyone honestly cares what you think? Do you truly believe you are that important?

I know I get under your skin, and I love that I do. Why? Because I got you all figured out. You're easier to figure out than 3rd grade math.

I can't imagine how much it must truly suck for you to be so irretrievably stupid that you can't even fool an unlikably lifeless, filthy animal who says disgusting things.

When I read your personal attacks towards me, it only serves to validate every single syllable that I say, type and believe. People like you and the voices in your head are not just what's wrong with Iran, but demonstrate what's wrong with society in general.

But, I want to thank you and all of your imaginary friends. In addition to being the primary reason why forced sterilization of the terminally stupid is a wonderful idea, you are really good for a laugh, too.

Farhad Kashani

Anonym7, No wars. Just

by Farhad Kashani on


No wars. Just ending IRI's reign. That will end all wars, cause the culture of hate and clash of civilizations that your beloved IRI promotes, will be replaced with culture of co existence and tolerance.

Instead of young Muslims embracing Khomeini's martyrdom culture, they will embrace tolerance and civility.


yavash Kashani!

by Anonym7 (not verified) on

Kashani says: "But again, I hope they see the light."

Kashani_jAn, is that why you are so impatient to light the match in the volatile Middle East and start another war?



by Dariush (not verified) on

Now you are making some sense. However, I still disagree that U.S. is the best option to help or to be used to bring democracy to Iran. U.S. in general never has had the intention of bringing democracy to Iran. With Obama as you said, this might change. However, I still see the same key players in the back ground trying to change, not the policies, but Obama's direction. That includes Hillary.

As for Carter. I don't know what you mean. Do you mean that he was wrong to ask Shah to give freedom to Iranians? That would be a contradiction to democracy. Do you mean his support of the democratically elected government of Palestine? That is also a contradiction to democracy. Are you suggesting people who fight for their freedom in Palestine don't have the same right as people in Iran who are fighting for freedom? That is a contradiction to democracy. As you and we said, freedom and human rights are international. Are you saying people around the world who desperately fight for their rights and sometimes take desperate measures and blow up themselves are any less human? As many have said before, including Ron Paul in congress. These are all a reaction to the actions of the west policies around the world. It is not just certain Arabs. There are Asians, South Americans, Africans and many more. There is no country or race left in the world that hasn't been effected by western countries atrocities, specially America and England who you call the best opportunity to bring democracy to Iran. Palestinians wouldn't have blown up themselves, they learn that from Vietnamese because it was effective. This had nothing to do with Iran or Islam or any other religion. Desperate times creates desperate measures. If Gandhi was alive today and would sit on the street to protest against Israelis and Americans crimes, they would run over him with tanks.

You didn't mention who is a person, if he or she wants Iran to be attacked and bombed. I assume you still believe in that. Remember, If this ever happen, you can not pick and choose and we most likely will have a regional war on our hands, if not the world war III.

Farhad Kashani

electric_samavar, I agree

by Farhad Kashani on


I agree with your points and I appreciate your good intentions. But some on the other side intentonally make it impossible for an atmosphere of civilized dialogue and embracing common grounds to develop.

Please keep in mind, they only say in words that they are anti IRI, but in fact they're not.They pose as human rights promoters, but to them human rights apply for one people only, Palestinians! And again, thats just in words! We're not talking about intentions. That doesn't mean they actually care about Palestinians. There is a reason they engage in this type of blind anti Israeli and anti U.S rethoric. Since IRI says those two are their biggest enemies, these guys by making Israel and U.S look bad, they make IRI look good.

But again, I hope they see the light.

Natalia Alvarado-Alvarez

Since when does the U.S, take its orders from Israel?

by Natalia Alvarado-Alvarez on

Holy Sh*t!


If deterrence fails and the

by Meehan (not verified) on

If deterrence fails and the Islamic Regime actually uses nukes on someone, are you willing to carry out the genocide of the Iranian people? That's the big one. Without a "yes" answer, it means you don't support deterrence. And if Americans don't support deterrence, the entity of Islamic Republic won't be deterred.

It appears Israel will take care of it for us, and we'll show our gratitude by complaining about it while benefitting from it. Just like we did with Iraq and Syria.

Netanyahu sounds like he's ready to go.

They should just send the Mossad after the mullahs, Ahmedinijad and their sympathizers.

The Iranian population, I think a large part, loves to get rid of mullahs.


What happens if the Islamic

by Meehan (not verified) on

What happens if the Islamic Republic of Iran being a major Islamist terrorist government and sponsor of Islamic international terrorism plans a major terrorist attack against the world's interests, or accelerates its terrorism support thinking it can deter response from major powers?

Do you support traditional deterrence measures, such as putting nuclear subs off of Iran's coast?

What kinds of assurances would you be willing to give Israel and Europe? Some of the anti-zionists here will loudly proclaim no assurances, but think for a minute what Israel and Europe's response to a nuclear Iran is likely to be in the absence of guarantees beyond what they are today?

The point I'm trying to make here is that the policy problem of an Iran working to acquire nukes is MUCH less complicated than the policy problem of what to do once they have them. This is not like North Korea, as all the nations that North Korea could threaten are already under our security umbrella. It's also not like India/Pakistan, because those nations are just two nations facing off against each other. if Iran gets nukes, it sets off an arms race in the Middle East and requires us to consider who we will and won't protect in that region.

This is a fanatical Islamic Regime in Iran that understands no logic. The same applies to Al Qaeda.

So, is all this worth dealing with, or is military action only against the Iranian terrorist Islamic establishment but not against Iranian people a better alternative if sanctions fail?


Kaveh Nouraee, Ostaad, mammad, Fred, Farhad Kashani

by electric_samavar on

First and foremost, I like to congratulate each and everyone of you for your ability to write well and articulate your points even better. I see that some of you are in the same camp when it comes to the U.S. and some on the opposite side, however, I see that we are all against the IslamoFascists who are getting fatter every day by devouring Iran's natural resources and sucking the blood of our fellow Iranians. We may just be bunch of intellectuals 1000's of miles away from Iran and trying to theorize the best approach(es) to eradicate this plague from Iran and Iranians. Regardless, what we do is in the hope of taking one baby step in bringing democracy to Iran. I would like to suggest to tone down your attacks on each other, express your views, and pursuade the "audience" in participating, where ever they may be, by encouraging their current government in putting the long-term solution to establishment of democracy as their highest priority and treat the Islamo-Fascists in Iran as the rapist parents of their citizens. I understand that we disagree in what Obama is doing, I guess only history would tell whether his intentions as he has expressed so far would be effective or not, but let's not to lose the focus and make this a personal battle-ground. Let's cherish this open forum and make the best out of it. I have repeatedly expressed the fact that U.S. has committed heinous crimes against humanity. We all know the Saddams and Talibans of the world are the by-products of their direct and indirect atrocities. What now? I hope you are not suggesting not to rely on the U.S. involvement in bringing democracy to Iran, or any other democratically elected government in the world for that matter. This gigantic bully has a thick liberal chain around its neck now. Let's pursuade the Liberal chain master not to make the typical liberal mistake of bowing to enemies of human rights as Mr. Obama did in front of Abdullah. The right wingers are making every effort possible to bringing him down, let us work harder to enlighten his government not to make Jimmy Carter type of mistake which is still haunting him to this date. I am hoping that we all agree that we cannot make anything humanly worthwhile happening while the profiteering Republicans are in power. I am hoping that we all agree that Republican leadership uses patriotic slogans and religious gestures to obtain votes when they single-mindedly pursue profit in every step of the way. HUMAN RIGHTS AT INTERNATIONAL LEVEL MUST BE NUMBER ONE PRIORITY OF EVERY HUMAN BEING. Democracy is the only guarantee we have for a GOOD Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness.  Set aside your difference and let us all fight for creating democracy in every single country around the world.  If you do not believe U.S. has committed crimes against humanity in the past, you don't belong to this camp, if you think U.S. is not the biggest potential influence to bringing democracy into a region you are dellusional, if you think IslamoFascists have the potentials of doing good, you are not worth being considered a human being, if you do not believe in separation of church and state, regardless of the flavor of the religion, you are in the same camp as the IslamoFascists, other than that, bring your best intentions to the table and let us debate intelligently as we have, regardless of the personal attacks.  I have personally learned a lot from all of you.



by Dariush (not verified) on

You mentioned number of crimes done by some in IRI. We are all against that. we all think those who have committed such crimes must pay. Saying that is one thing, saying that Iran should be bombed is something else.

You said, some day Bush and others will be prosecuted and pay for their crimes. You believe there are organizations, just system, rule of law and etc in U.S. I sure hope so. But can you name any president or vice president or even high ranking members in government that have been brought to justice for their crimes in respect to other countries or even other races in U.S. from the beginning of U.S. history until now? Wouldn't it be better, if those organizations prevented crimes rather than bringing the criminals to justice afterward? That is what we are trying to do here and you are doing the opposite.

I may not have the right answer to the problems in Iran, but it is better than having the wrong answer like you do.

I see you can't stop repeating Asgar Ghassab's name. My guess was right. He was from Ghazvin right?
I think most of your hate is as a result of Asghar Ghassabe's relation with you. Not that it matters to me, it will just bring back the old memories for you and you can never get over it.

As for your mullah comment.
My name shows what kind of family I come from and your name shows yours.


Dr. Strangelove

by Fred on

You having an Islamist ideological handler guru/ mentor, and being the regional coordinator, are not mutually exclusive. Your “ringleader” reference is perhaps a Freudian slip on your part.

 Your handler, you know the mortgage chap, is way over your head with his Islamist credentials and connections. On the other hand you are good at writing and formulating their Islamist mumbo jumbo in a language palatable by the lefty Westerners. Try your lefty Islamist shtick with some genuine leftist who don’t have a political ax to grind and see how far you go before they laugh you out the door.   

As far as personal appearances are concerned both you and your handler and for that matter the Harvard-envy who you at times partner with or the chap in England should seriously avoid it at all cost for you just come across as what you are, crude Islamists.

Now go over to your handler and yaadaa yaadaa to your Islamist heart’s content.  

Farhad Kashani

Anthony,   Using words

by Farhad Kashani on


Using words like “your thick head” and “how stupid you people get” illustrates your character (lack of it). From my experience, bullies and uncivilized people like you don’t tend to support and call for a free and democratic Iran. So no surprise there.

 Kamran Kermani,  

Since you called me an “Israeli” (not that is anything wrong with being an Israeli, but you used it to demonize me), the above applies to you too.

 KoroushS aziz,  

Unfortunately my friend, it’s not only IRI’s rhetoric. IRI’s creation, inspiration and support for both Hamas and Hezbollah and other Islamist group and individuals who call for the annihilation of Israel and promote global fundamentalism, has caused the animosity, and off course, the rhetoric plays a very important part too. Should Israel think that IRI will drop a nuke on Israel? Never. IRI is not that stupid, they’re ignorant and Fascist, yes, but when it comes to causing chaos and how to manage it, they are ultra smart!!


Also, enough with the personal attack, I didn’t call you a hypocrite; I called Trita Parsi and NIAC hypocrites. Pleas don’t cross lines if you are intending to have mature and civilized conversations.


Are you done with the personal attacks? Let me know when you are willing to have a real conversation. You made baseless claims against me on which I have made my positions clear a zillion  times! I told you before, if I had those beliefs, I would’ve openly say it. Why would I hide them? I’m scared of you????


There is nothing worst than defending a regime that even your leftist comrades, like Guardian, say that is one, if not the, worst offenders of human rights, which is what you do. You claim you’re not, but you are. That is as extreme as you can get. Many of IRI officials themselves from time to time, to make it look as if they care, say that things are not well. You even don’t wanna acknowledge that.


And as far as self defense, in today’s world, self defense is not only against a military attack only. IRIs rhetoric and action has become a threat for Israel’s existence. IRI’s creation, support and inspiration of Hamas, which is fighting Israeli militarily and doesn’t recognize it, and is not willing to compromise, just like the big brother IRI, is a grave threat to Israel’s existence. That’s not saying Israel is right or wrong, that’s just saying Israel is feeling threatened. The question is why has IRI taken our people and country hostage for Israel Arab conflict? I have stated their goal (s) a million times. Also, if you’re talking about Israel attacking nuclear sites in Iran, I have also said a million times, that the world should let go of this whole nuclear weapons issue. I have no doubt that IRI is pursuing nuclear weapons, but I’m not afraid of that. Israel and US are making themselves look stupid by pursuing this case. The best you can do is to expose IRIs lies in this matter. But as far as getting real results, that’s not gonna happen. I said a million times that IRIs threat reflects in its inspiration, support and promotion of fundamentalism and making “human bombs” not “nuclear bombs”. And FYI..Those human bombs do not have to physically in Iran to fault the IRI for them. IRIs promotion of martyrdom culture in the Islamic world has caused the establishment of an army of young human bombs. 9/11 was done using box cutters not nukes.


Also, you are getting close to crossing some lines here by using some personal attacks. I’m not gonna be a 5 years old baby like you and answer you back, but I’m warning, if you wanna keep it civilized, act civilized (although I know its hard for the left to do that, but at least try!, and grow up!). Otherwise, lets go at it! I know how to curse and humiliate in 6 languages, and I have a sharp tongue, but I don’t use it unless someone “messes” with me first! This is not about me. If you think I’m jealous that NIAC gets airtime and I don’t, with all due respect, you’re way dumber than I thought.



Fredo C

by Mammad on

As girl friend of George, the character in Seinfeld, said,

yeah, yaadi, yaadi, yaadaa!!

Expose me!

Yaadi, yaadi, yaadaa! 

I now have a guru (up until 2 weeks ago, I was the ring leader)!!!

yaadi, yaadi, yaada!

Say "havaa, halvaa, halvaa", may be you would taste the sweetness!!

Yaadi, yaadi, yaada!!!! 

Mammad, yaadaa! 


Dr. Strangelove

by Fred on

By” challenging people”, “countering people” like you I’m being “impulsive? I must be “hallucinating”?  Or must first rise to your level? You are just not getting it are you?

 You see Doc thanks to your ruling Islamist brethrens in your Islamist republic; generations of Iranians have gotten to experience first hand what Islamist people like you are made of.

 Regardless of what you might think of yourself, or  what stage of megalomania you are presently suffering from, you are not a deity, and as such, are very much not only subject to being challenged and countered, but also exposed.

Your oxymoron encapsulation of patriotism as a cover for the Islamist nuke in the service of the Islamist republic might fool some of the people some of the time but I assure you their number is dwindling fast.

As your Islamist ideological handler guru/mentor got a taste of it on T.V, the other day, you too better get used to it.




by Mammad on

While some of the things that you say make sense to me, you (and people like you) repeat something that has no basis in reality and history.

It was not the 1979 Revolution in Iran that started the so-called radical Islamic movement, but,

1. the US-supported coup in Pakistan in 1977 - two full years before the Iranian Revolution - that brought the reactionary General Mohammad Zia al-Hagh to power in Pakistan. He was the one who imposed his reactionary interpretation of Shria on Pakistan with direct and huge financial support of Saudi Arabia - another US ally. He was the one who started all those madrasa in Pakistan. He was the one who hanged the democratically elected Zolfaghar Ali Bhuto in Pakistan, and he was the one who populatd Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence - the military's intelligence unit - with reactionary radicals.

Then, two years later, when the Soviets occupied Afghanistan, it was the ISI, with US/CIA weapons and Saudi's money, that created the so-called Mojahedin to fight the Soviets. And, after the Soviets withdrew their forces, it was the ISI that created the Taliban.

2. It was the same Mojahedin - those whom Rolnald Reagan, the idol of conservatives like you, called "the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers" - who turned into being the Taliban, with ISI's support, and Al-Qaeda. This is so widely known and acknowledged even by the rightest of the right in this country, that it is amazing to see that people like you - educated and informed - still repeat the nonsense about the effect of the 1979 Revolution. 

The reactionary Taliban and the terrorist Al-Qaeda have absolutely positively nothing to do with Iran and the 1979 Revolution. They, in fact, despise Iran, Iranians, and the Shiites.

One can be a good honest conservative. There is nothing wrong with it. But, that does not entail distorting the history to advance a line of thinking that has no connection with reality.



Fredo C

by Mammad on

You cannot stop your impulsive nonsense, can you?

In your fantasies - hallunications is a better word - you are challenging people like me. In your hallucinations you counter people like me. Well, I have news for you, Fredo C: to challenge people you must first rise to their level. In this case, rising for you will happen only in your hallucinations. No amount of smart a.. and "sophisticated" words will do. People like you need not "apply."

I take my "questioned" patriotism over your warmongering hatred any second. Who gives a hoot to whether you consider anybody a patriot, anyway? You need not apply! A person whose only goal is to advocate war in his atomic-scale world (and brain for that matter) cannot judge other people's patriotism!

Finally, who gives a hoot whether you - a faceless dude filled with hatred - considers anybody an expert or not? What is your problem? Bemoaning like your soul mate, FK, why nobody listens to you, Fredo C?

Now go back and ask your handlers how to respond to this one, Fredo C!!


P.S.: Do you know who Fredo C was? Without knowing, you are hiding behind a perfectly selected name!! I am laughing as I write this!! 


Kaveh - I feel your pain, homie

by Ostaad on

I'm not sure what more you expect the US to do to put "these degenerates" in their place! Hasn't the US invaded other countries, killed thousands, occupied and pillaged them all in the name of "global war on terror"?! Has it gone over your head that American families have lost thousands of their twenty-something sons and daughters, thousands have been maimed for the rest of their lives, thousands are going to come home crazy enough to pull a Timothy McVie operation here? If all that is not having "balls" in your pedestrian way of thinking, then why don't you lend the US yours, if you can find them?

You are an articulate person of the "conservative" persuasion. But it's a pity that your low-ball conservatism, based on your asinine remarks about the Somalia hijacking incident, and calling Clinton a c*nt, seems to be of the garden variety redneck type that usually takes place during the break at a rodeo show among joe-the-plumbers of the world, than the conservative type that I respect such as the late Bill Buckley.

American lost respect, influence and friends when your idol, the goat herder form Texas, was in the WH. America is getting back its lost stature and influence again under Obama. I know it pains you to even think about these facts. But remember, your side lost! Deal with it, dude.

BTW. I have spare tube of Preparation-H which I can send you if you'd like me to.  I sure don't want to see you in pain.