In the early hours of June 7, a group of six people — five men and one woman — launched coordinated terrorist attacks against two sites in Tehran, hitting the Iranian Parliament and the mausoleum of the Islamic Republic’s founder, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Witnesses at the Parliament described attackers who were armed with assault rifles and wearing suicide vests, randomly targeting bystanders on a Wednesday morning. By the time that security forces were able to neutralize the attackers, at least 12 civilians lay dead, with another 42 reported wounded. The atrocity was claimed almost immediately by the Islamic State, in an online statement that also included video footage taken from the scene of the attacks.
While the Middle East has been ravaged by over a decade of terrorist attacks from ISIS, Al Qaeda, and other terrorists groups, Iran has largely escaped deadly incidents like the one that struck Tehran on Wednesday. In a statement responding to the incident, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps suggested that “mercenaries” working on behalf of Saudi Arabia and the United States were responsible, vowing to take revenge.
Along with targeting civilians in a city long considered to be safe from terrorism, however, the Islamic State’s first attack in Iran also seemed designed to further aggravate tensions in the Persian Gulf region. On his recent visit to Saudi Arabia, President Donald Trump endorsed the virulently anti-Iranian stance of the ruling Saudi monarchy and seemed to go out of his way to fan regional tensions rather than temper them. Trump’s messages on that trip were reasonably interpreted by many as giving a green light for Saudi leaders to take aggressive action against Iran. But while there is no evidence to suggest a direct Saudi role in the terrorist attack in Tehran, even the suspicion of Saudi involvement during a period of high tension between the two countries could have major consequences.
Photo: Omid Vahabzadeh/Fars News Agency/AP
“If this attack had happened at any other time, Iran would probably deal with it internally and their response would not be that different from how other countries have responded to ISIS attacks,” said Afshon Ostovar, an assistant professor of national security affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School and author of “Vanguard of the Imam: Religion, Politics and Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps.” “But coming on the heels of this sort of mounting pressure from their rivals across the Gulf, the timing is very ripe for some kind of Iranian reaction. There are probably people within the [Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps] who do believe that it was the Saudis who were behind this somehow.”
While it’s unclear what kind of retaliation the IRGC might employ, its reaction would not necessarily have to involve attacking the Saudi homeland. Over the past several years, Iran and Saudi Arabia have been waging a brutal proxy war across the Middle East, with active conflicts in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. Iran could easily escalate in any one of these conflict zones, targeting Saudi allies or personnel. A major escalation in any of these conflicts would be even more dangerous because the United States is increasingly an active belligerent in all these countries, having escalated its direct support for Saudi-allied forces since Trump’s election.
In recent weeks in Syria, U.S. forces have even targeted Iranian-backed militia groups with airstrikes on three separate occasions, attacks that by some accounts killed scores of fighters. While these groups have not yet reacted by targeting American forces, it’s not implausible for this to happen in the near future, in Syria or another country, if tensions continue to rise.
“This is the first time the U.S. and Iranian-backed groups have been at the knife’s edge of conflict in Syria,” said Ostovar. “If the IRGC does retaliate and the conflict in the region intensifies, you could eventually see things like green-on-blue attacks against U.S. troops in Iraq by [Iranian-backed militias], a development that would seriously complicate the campaign against ISIS.”
Why Jihadis Are Striking Iran Now
The growing threat of terrorism in Iran is another factor that could escalate conflict in the Middle East, even after ISIS is driven out of its last territorial holdings in Iraq and Syria. Over the past decade, Iran was largely insulated from terrorist attacks, a respite that some claim stems from older arrangements made by Iran with Al Qaeda leaders in the years after the 9/11 attacks.
A body, at background left, lies on the ground while police control the scene at the shrine of late Iranian revolutionary founder Ayatollah Khomeini, just outside Tehran, Iran, June 7, 2017.
Photo: Ebrahim Noroozi/AP
While the idea of coordination between some Sunni extremist groups and Shia-led Iran may appear far-fetched, there could be something to these claims. Following the 2001 U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, many high-ranking members of Al Qaeda and their families fled to exile in Iran, where they spent years living under house arrest overseen by the IRGC. During this time, a tacit agreement was reportedly reached between the terrorist group and their Iranian captors, with Al Qaeda allegedly refraining from attacking within Iran in exchange for continued asylum for its leaders. A recent book about this period by British journalists Cathy Scott-Clark and Adrian Levy, “The Exile,” documents this strange period in recent history, interviewing former Al Qaeda members who lived in Iran about their dealings with the IRGC.
As the book describes it, the reception the exiles received in Iran was relatively positive. During the years that Al Qaeda leaders and their families spent in the country, IRGC commanders ensured their safety and privacy. Although their relationship was sometimes contentious, the Iranians also occasionally went out of their way to keep their Al Qaeda exiles happy, providing them with creature comforts and even taking them and their families to visit tourist sites around the country.
Iran may not have been the only country that sought to make similar arrangements with al Qaeda. A letter recovered from Osama bin Laden’s Abbottabad compound suggested that British intelligence had also reached out to intermediaries with al Qaeda to help mediate an agreement in which the British, “would leave Afghanistan if al Qaida promised not to target their interests.” It is unclear from the available correspondence where these discussions led, or even whether al Qaeda had accepted the offer as legitimate.
Over the years, the exiles in Iran were periodically released or repatriated, with some eventually ending up in U.S. custody. In 2015, Iran released several top members of Al Qaeda’s military leadership (who then traveled to Syria), reportedly in exchange for the release of a captive Iranian diplomat in Yemen. The purported trade could be seen as Iran departing with a major bargaining chip held against regional jihadist movements.
“The post-9/11 exile of Al Qaeda figures to Iran was really puzzling, as Iran was at odds with Al Qaeda politically and ideologically and they were really taking a huge risk by allowing them to operate in the country,” said Ostovar. “Although they may have gotten some intelligence out of it and a ‘gentleman’s agreement’ not to conduct attacks inside Iran, in the end the exiles did not prove to be that useful and were perhaps more of a liability.”
The Saudi Free Hand
Although Iran may have received some protection from terrorism through its Al Qaeda captives, there’s little indication that it now has any similar leverage to protect against Islamic State attacks on its territory. And if terrorism does increase in the Iranian homeland, it is very likely that the IRGC will decide that the blame for that lies with Saudi Arabia, a country whose leadership has made public statements threatening to bring “the battle” to the Iranian homeland and which is frequently accused by Iranian leaders of supporting Islamic State.
“I consider it a worst-case scenario, but I would not rule out some kind of asymmetric attack against Saudi Arabia by Iran in retaliation for what happened in Tehran,” said Paul Pillar, a nonresident senior fellow at the Center for Security Studies at Georgetown University and former CIA analyst. “This was a very carefully planned operation and I suspect it was in the works well before the Trump trip. But due to the timing, I’m sure that there are people within the IRGC who sincerely believe that Saudi was involved.”
Following Trump’s trip to Saudi Arabia, there is a widespread perception that the U.S. government has given a blank check to its Gulf Arab allies to pursue aggressive actions across the Middle East. In recent weeks, Bahrain’s government escalated its crackdown on domestic dissent, while the United Arab Emirates has spearheaded the campaign to isolate Qatar over its support of regional Islamist movements.
But the burgeoning hostilities between Saudi Arabia and Iran have the potential to be the most dangerous of all these situations. Any confrontation between the two powers that rises to the level of even limited armed conflict could threaten oil shipments and critical infrastructure in the Persian Gulf, with implications for global economic stability. While the U.S. has historically sought to control the Saudi-Iran rivalry for this reason, under Trump the United States seems to be adding fuel to the fire by backing Saudi efforts to confront Iran at any cost.
“The United States has an interest in stability in the Gulf region and it has an interest in promoting peaceful relations between the Saudis and Iranians. But instead of doing that, we’ve been stoking tensions, which was the main theme of Trump’s trip to Saudi Arabia,” said Pillar. “It’s very saddening to see how much the Trump administration is giving the green light to the worst Saudi inclinations.”
Top photo: Police officers control the scene around the shrine of late Iranian revolutionary founder Ayatollah Khomeini after an assault by several attackers in Tehran, Iran, June 7, 2017.
Dear oh dear – peddling the Iran-Al Qaeda terrorist link. Better send the troops in then! Or better still, better shut this waste-of-space propaganda rag down.
This is the next phase of the NWO Empire-building – send the terrorists into Iran as has happened in Syria. It is utterly disturbing and utterly unacceptable and the main way to deal with it is to remove the powerbrokers in our governments that believe this is an acceptable weapon of the wars they wish to engage.
Time for the American people to kick out Trump and install decent leaders like Sanders, the candidate who would’ve beaten Trump if he had not been betrayed by the puppet masters and financiers of his own party. They are the few, we are the many and they can only exist and succeed with our tacit acceptance of their criminal behaviour. Time for REAL change.
Daesh, which is often opportunistic and swift in taking credit for major attacks, has not yet provided credible evidence showing that it carried out the assaults in Tehran. The nature of the attacks, which targeted political and ideological symbols rather than a crowd of ordinary people, appears uncommon for an extremist group like Daesh.
Iran has never been a victim! Iranian leaders repeatedly claim that they are fighting Daesh and other extremist groups in Syria and Iraq, but Iran had not been attacked by any extremist group until Wednesday. On the other hand, Saudi Arabia had many terror attacks by ISIS in the past two years which caused deaths of citizens and loyal policemen.
Here is a more interesting article written by someone whose pay check is not dependent on the US government:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/going-after-the-islamic-state/5401439
The inflow and delivery of weapons and supplies are coordinated by the Pentagon in liaison with America’s allies.
US military aid is channelled to Al Qaeda as well as to ISIS-Daesh.
The US has also used the illegal weapons market to channel vast amounts of weapons and military hardware to the Syrian “rebels”.
In March 2017, the US military came to the rescue of ISIS-Daesh commanders who were being evacuated out of Iraq and Syria in US military helicopters. According to the Arabic language al-Hadath news website:
“several US military helicopters landed on kilometer 10 of Deir Ezzur-Hasaka road and evacuated a number of ISIL commanders from the region. … After the helicopter landed, several US marines took 10 ISIL commanders on board and left the region,” …
“Abu Dajane Fransawi has most likely been among the top ISIL commanders taken away by the US marines, …ISIL’s man in charge of the terrorist group’s financial affairs in Forat (Euphrates) oilfield.” (quoted by FNA)
Similar rescue operations of ISIS-Daesh Commanders were conducted in Iraq.
Manchester, London
With regard to the Manchester and London terror attacks, this relationship between the ISIS and its Western State sponsors (including the intelligence services of the British government) cannot be ignored.
The blowback thesis is a red herring. The sponsors of ISIS are now heralded as the victims of ISIS, an absurd proposition. Those who are funded and supported by Western intelligence services are now said to be fighting back.
The ISIS has a certain degree of independence in relation to its State sponsors. That is the nature of what is called an “intelligence asset”. But an “intelligence asset” is always on the radar of the intelligence services.
The British government has supported several Al Qaeda affiliated entities including the Libya Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) which was linked to the Manchester bombings.
It is worth noting that the release of the Hillary Clinton email archive as well as leaked Pentagon documents confirm that the US and its allies are supportive of ISIS, which according to European press reports, are the alleged architects of the Brussels, Berlin and Manchester terror attacks.
Moreover, a 7-page Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) document dated August of 2012, points to US complicity in supporting the creation of an Islamic State.(Excerpt below)”
With the support of America’s indefectible British ally, President Barack Obama has ordered [2014] a series of US bombing raids on Iraq allegedly with a view to defeating the rebel army of the Islamic State (IS).
“We will not waver in our determination to confront the Islamic State … If terrorists think we will weaken in the face of their threats they could not be more wrong.” (Barack Obama and David Cameron, Strengthening the NATO alliance, op ed published in the London Times, September 4, 2014, emphasis added)
But Who is behind the Islamic State Project?
In a bitter irony, until recently the rebels of the Islamic State, formerly known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) were heralded as Syria’s “opposition freedom fighters” committed to “restoring democracy” and unseating the secular government of Bashar al Assad.
And who was behind the jihadist insurgency in Syria?
Those who ordered the bombing campaign are those who are behind the Caliphate Project.
The Islamic State (IS) militia, which is currently the alleged target of a US-NATO bombing campaign under a “counter-terrorism” mandate, was and continues to be supported covertly by the United States and its allies.
In other words, the Islamic State (IS) is a creation of US intelligence with the support of Britain’s MI6, Israel’s Mossad, Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and Saudi Arabia’s General Intelligence Presidency (GIP), Ri’?sat Al-Istikhb?r?t Al-‘?mah ( ????? ??????????? ???????). Moreover, according to Israeli intelligence sources (Debka) NATO in liaison with the Turkish High Command has been involved in the recruitment of jihadist mercenaries from the outset of the Syrian crisis in March 2011.
In relation to the Syrian insurgency, the Islamic State fighters together with the Al Qaeda affiliated jihadist forces of the Al Nusrah Front are the foot soldiers of the Western military alliance. They are covertly supported by US-NATO-Israel. Their mandate is to wage a terrorist insurgency against the government of Bashar al-Assad. The atrocities committed by Islamic State fighters in Iraq are similar to those committed in Syria.
As a result of media disinformation, Western public opinion is unaware that the Islamic State terrorists have from the very outset been supported by the United States and its allies.
The killings of innocent civilians by the Islamic State terrorists in Iraq are used to create a pretext and a justification for US military intervention on humanitarian grounds. The bombing raids ordered by Obama, however, are not intended to eliminate the Islamic State, which constitutes a US “intelligence asset”. Quite the opposite, the US is targeting the civilian population as well as the Iraqi resistance movement.
According to London’s Daily Express “They [the Islamic State terrorists] had money and arms supplied by Qatar and Saudi Arabia.”
US Saudi connection
“The most important source of ISIS financing to date has been support coming out of the Gulf states, primarily Saudi Arabia but also Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates,” (According to Dr. Günter Meyer, Director of the Center for Research into the Arabic World at University of Mainz, Germany, Deutsche Welle)
This money was channeled to ISIS terrorists fighting against government forces in Syria:
“Through allies such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the West [has] supported militant rebel groups which have since mutated into ISIS and other al?Qaeda connected militias. ( Daily Telegraph, June 12, 2014)
According to Robert Fisk, the IS caliphate project “has been bankrolled by Saudi Arabia”:
…[M]eet Saudi Arabia’s latest monstrous contribution to world history: the Islamist Sunni caliphate of Iraq and the Levant, conquerors of Mosul and Tikrit – and Raqqa in Syria – and possibly Baghdad, and the ultimate humiliators of Bush and Obama.
From Aleppo in northern Syria almost to the Iraqi-Iranian border, the jihadists of Isis and sundry other groupuscules paid by the Saudi Wahhabis – and by Kuwaiti oligarchs – now rule thousands of square miles. (Robert Fisk, The Independent, June 12, 2014
In 2013, as part of its recruitment of terrorists, Saudi Arabia took the initiative of releasing prisoners on death row in Saudi jails.
A secret memo revealed that the prisoners were being “recruited” to join jihadist militia (including Al Nusrah and ISIS) to fight against government forces in Syria.
Saudi prison
The prisoners had reportedly been offered a deal — stay and be executed or fight against Assad in Syria. As part of the deal the prisoners were offered a “pardon and a monthly stipend for their families, who were allowed to stay in the Sunni Arab kingdom”.
Saudi officials apparently gave them a choice: decapitation or jihad? In total, inmates from Yemen, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Jordan, Somalia, Afghanistan, Egypt, Pakistan, Iraq, and Kuwait chose to go and fight in Syria.(See Global Research, September 11, 2013)
“Volte Face”: About Turn
On September 11, 2014, coinciding with the commemoration of 9/11, the King of Saudi Arabia together with the Monarchs of the Gulf States announced their unbending commitment to support Obama’s holy war against the Islamic State (IS), which has and continues to be funded by Qatari and Saudi money as part of a carefully engineered intelligence operation.”
Why The Intercept do not interview Canadian Professor Michael Chossudovsky’s and publish that he is the author of American War on Terrorism.
And to think I was about to give money ti support your journalism when you are becoming like the Guardian.
Long to say what we all know, that the Zeus funds and profits from both sides. Of course, we could ask, who is dumb enough to repeatedly fall for this. You will find that both sides families will be seeking asylum to the us as this is their ticket. Interesting to note, visa applicants from Iran favor women, bc they bring the family over.
Share $ome so as to be part of the solution reporting. Takes time, is a continual– not closed process.
@Jay
Thank you for the well written post and the link.
Now that we have full on legal propaganda in America, there’s little chance for many to grasp this.
2nd
http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/06/02/ If trump wants a fight in the middle east iran will give him one
Interesting cartographic skills, Afghanistan and Pakistan suddenly vanished from the map as Iran’s neighbors.
And chanting USA seems to be “the only way to clear up other problems in the region”. Of course, this is what we have learned by reading The Intercept!!?!
Where’s Russia? Apparently on another planet, busy changing Britons’ minds and their ballots.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/08/whos-to-blame-for-the-savagery-seen-in-manchester-and-london
One woman in attack group? Seems odd, would Saudis allow a woman in one of their US approved terrorist groups? Just speculating.
The one woman was sent as a message of exactly who was responsible..ISrael as a partner in IS.
Iran is the last country on General Wesley Clark’s list of, “seven
countries in five years”. Saudi Arabia has been massively increasing its
military spending for a number of years, spending about 10% of its GDP
annually, while gaining battlefield experience in places like Yemen. The
White House is occupied by someone who doesn’t seem to have a clue about
geopolitics, or anything other than flame wars on twitter for that matter.
There is also rumblings of economic calamities ahead. It all points to
serious trouble.
And glamorous photo’s of mass murderers brandishing a Kalashnikov wont
help the situation any.
On second observance that man the the Kalashnikov may well be security personnel, so scratch the murderer bit, apologies for any offense.
I agree. It seems that General Wesley Clark has been a Rosetta Stone of understanding what the US attempts to do in the Middle-East. Below is a statement by General Wesley Clark when he appeared with Amy Goodman back in 2008:
“If you were Iran, you’d probably believe that you were mostly already at war with the United States anyway, since we’ve asserted that their government needs regime change, and we’ve asked Congress to appropriate $75 million to do it, and we are supporting terrorist groups, apparently, who are infiltrating and blowing up things inide Iraq — Iran. And if we’re not doing it, let’s put it this way: We’re probably cognizant of it and encouraging it. So it’s not surprising that we’re moving to a point of confrontation and crisis with Iran.”
Sounds oddly close to what happened on June 7th.
It is amayzing that after 9/11,many people in Iran held candlelight vigils. And what happends when they get attacked by terrorist? They are greeted with an attitude basically that they deserved it by our president.
Great stuff here; love it. Things that stood out:
• “The atrocity was claimed almost immediately by the Islamic State, in an online statement that also included video footage taken from the scene of the attacks.”
In a book called Pumpkin Flowers the author points out that Pumpkin was the first attack where live video propaganda was used. And outrageous claims were made. So, don’t believe the attack in England was really ISIS.
• Rev guard refers to them as “mercenaries.” I like this word. I believe that ISIS is the Rep guard at least the brain power behind it. Terrorist / terroism has lost meaning.
• “United States is increasingly an active belligerent in all these countries” So well put sir, so well put. It’s Trump’s turn at running the ball and as Craig points out below he’s fumbling. If someone is trying to control the middle east perhaps it is the rep. guard using ISIS as a tool. Becuase of your article, it looks like they (Baathist / rep guard) read Julius Caesar.
So it’s not Trump being a dumb dumb, though I’m sure it doesn’t help. And it’s not SA.
The Daily Beast has an article on Beruit 30 years later, that the US has learned nothing.
Obviously, we as human beings have not advanced much in modern times. We are still all about war, terror and pillage.
It could be Alexander or the Roman’s trashing Carthage.
We all want to believe we are “right” in our choices to engage in that behaviour, that there is a just cause or to teach a lesson that won’t be soon forgotten.
I want to believe a better world of healing, cooperation and respect for the “other” is possible.
The days of burning libraries is still with us and sadly, we are a very self destructive species.
Thom Hartman
“Could Trump’s Tweets lead to WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST?
https://youtu.be/lh16ZF1eWbc
Al Jazeera : hours ago Inside Story
https://youtu.be/96rLKsobZnk
They aint movin centcom. They already did and war forges on. Think about it Unk, Germany’s ditchin Turkey, as well they should. Centcom in Jordan? Because we aint goin anywhere else… redundant much? Aint hapnin. Grump got strung along by his royal co-horts. There is so much talk about the deep state around here but much of it’s shallow and stupid.
Totally agree. The author of the book lives in the US and he will not go against the NSA.
“the Trump administration is giving the green light to the worst Saudi inclinations”
$110 billion military deals, to take effect immediately, could grow into $220 billion!
$350 billion, over a decade, could spiral upward, to $700 billion.
What is it not to like?
….. and the absolute joke of US imperialism claims, ah .. those Muslims are so good at killing each other, they are doing good job at it without our input/interference!
There have been more attacks from Baluchistan on Iran than I care to look up and link. The fact that all of the attackers were Iranian doesn’t bode well for this narrative. Meanwhile, Germany is pulling it’s military from Turkey as the US should have done almost two years ago. We will but probably not as smoothly as Germany is about to.
I dont watch any of their broadcasts, but, I gotta give it up to al Jazeera! They got about everybody beat in terms of up to the minute even while being hacked? Middleeasteye
Exactly..watch this RT CrossTalk Discussion from yesterday, Targeting Qatar ”
https://youtu.be/yEsuVfO4jtQ
about halfway thru, one of the panel brings up Al Jazeera in Qatar as one big reason Saudi Arabia and UAE have It out for Qatar, among other reasons
I dont watch their broadcasts either, Uncle Bob, the Russians are not my friend. The dimwit so they call themselves, americans who’ve chanted that, are in for one rude awakening or another.
For the Iranian regime, much of the blame for the notable rise in Islamic extremist groups lies squarely on its doorstep. The mullahs constant vitriol aimed at the U.S. and its Sunni Arab neighbors has only made routine the kind of hate that groups like Hezbollah have acted on for decades.
The use of proxies and terrorist groups has always been a part of the statecraft toolbox for Iran as it has used Hezbollah and the Houthis to conduct open warfare in Syria and Yemen, meanwhile bolstering Shiite militias in Iraq to push Sunnis out of the coalition government there and into the waiting arms of ISIS recruiters.
Saudi Arabia is a terrorist state.
Iran is a democratic state.
Simple. But do not expect the WHORES FOR WARS to acknowledge that. Instead, expect the whores for wars to get your sons and daughters killed for corporat profits that feed the CEO’s and their fellow wallstreet schemesters.
hey barb remind me when that last election for the Supreme Leader was. And what was the name of the guy that lost ? i seem to have forgotten.
Does the US ‘Supreme Leader’ (head of SCOTUS) get elected in the US, or is that a lifetime appointment?
No country has a perfect form of government, but spare me the self-indulgent superiority posture. It’s obnoxious.
Is the SCOTUS:
“the head of state and highest ranking political and religious authority in the Islamic Republic of Iran. The armed forces, judicial system, state television, and other key governmental organizations are under the control of the Supreme Leader of Iran.”
Well Jose are they?
As are Israel’s under government control.
I suppose you’ll say there is a free and open press, not admitting that all foreign press need approval from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs before going to press.
You want an all Jewish state, while in Iran there are Christians and Jews in their parliament.
I’m certainly not saying Iran is an ideal society, but no Israeli should be casting stones.
It’s too bad for the people of Israel that would like respect from the world for being a just state, recognizing the rights of all faiths and allowing Jerusalem to be an that rather than the eternal struggle to cut it off from all but the expanded control of israel.
I know not all are supportive of your ever expanding borders and promotion of war for regional dominance.
You had the opportunity to allow a right of return for those that were ethnically cleansed and be a vision of true democracy and be respected by people who are not evangelical rapurist’s that want believe you should burn.
Just bloody pitiful.
!) I don’t want an all Jewish state and at present Israeli’s govt has 17 members of the Knesset who are Arabs. There are also Arab diplomats, Arab generals , and Arab in the judges including Salim Joubran who is on the Supreme Court.
On the other hand Jews in Iran hold one seat in Parliament and that seat is reserved for a Jew. There cannot be and under no circumstances can there be more than that number in Parliament. Oh and members of the B’hai faith who are considered apostates can not run for Parliament at all.Also all faiths may practice in Israel and unlike in Iran no one has been executed for apostasy.
2) For comparison when it comes to freedom of the press between Israel and Iran. According to Reporters Without Boarders Israel is ranked 91, while Iran is ranked 165 out of 180.
3) Israel has given up far more land in order to have peace then it has added.
4) The Jewish population in Iran was over 100,000 before the revolution in ’79 now it stands at less than 10,000. Arabs population in Israel in 1946 was 1,267,037 today it is 2,196,000.
5) I am not Israeli I am an American. What are you?
Perhaps if people like you did’t go around demonizing one side in this conflict and presenting falsehoods like you just did in your post there could be peace. But clearly peace is not what you are interested in Grace, you are only interested in demonization and false claims.
Would you state in terms of religious freedom, press freedom, political pluralism, freedom of expression, Iran is superior to the US?
I do not understand how it is all right to say that in terms of healthcare of press freedom Norway is superior to the US, but we cannot say that in terms of personal freedom the US is superior to Iran that sends people to jail for dancing “I am happy”.
No, but there is at least one way in which Iran is superior to the US: It hasn’t initiated a war of aggression against another country in centuries.
Of course, your complete refusal to acknowledge that the ‘Supreme Leader’ serves at the pleasure of the directly elected (in contested elections, with different factions winning power or becoming the minority opposition within the body) Council of Experts in no way will invalidate your claim that Iran is a dictatorship with too many people.
And that’s the reason the history of humanity is, and continues to be filled with tragedy, horrors, injustices, and people like Trump.
Of course:
“In theory, the Supreme Leader is appointed and supervised by the Assembly of Experts. However, all candidates to the Assembly of Experts, the President and the Majlis (Parliament), are selected by the Guardian Council, whose members are selected by the Supreme Leader of Iran.[19] Also, all directly-elected members after the vetting process by the Guardian Council still have to be approved by the Supreme Leader.[20][21] As such, the Assembly has never questioned the Supreme Leader.[22] There have been instances when the current Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has publicly criticized members of the Assembly of Experts, resulting in their arrest and dismissal. For example, Khamenei publicly called Ahmad Azari Qomi a traitor, resulting in Ahmad Azari Qomi’s arrest and eventual dismissal from the Assembly of Experts”
Oh and by law the Supreme leader must be a Muslim Cleric.
What say you to that Rich. Or dont you acknowledge it?
What a bore you are, wagging your self-righteous finger at Iran. At least Iran has elections for their president. Contrast that with Saudi Arabia, a de-facto medieval dictatorship with head-chopping nonstop in the public square, women not allowed to drive cars or even leave the house without a male escort. But USA is happy to do business and cooperate with Saudi Arabia, the country with the world’s worst human rights record.
“What a bore you are, wagging your self-righteous finger at Iran”
1) The power is not with the president of Iran. You already know that, but you must ignore it to present your argument.
2) The number of executions in Iran is more than double that of Saudi Arabia. That includes minors (in complete violation of UN convention) and adults for adultery.
3) The US does business with Iran. Some businesses are restricted by between 170-250 million dollars worth of trade is Iran every year
Are we supposed to blame Saudi Arabia human rights and ignore Iran human rights?
No, but if human rights are an actual official concern, and not a geopolitical propaganda tool, statements and actions toward Saudi Arabia should at least match those made toward Iran.
1) human rights are not the primary determinant of foreign policies of any countries. Actually if human rights was it would be in direct contradiction of your principle of self determination.
2) “Saudi Arabia should at least match those made toward Iran.”
That is weird coming from you. Why would the US say anything about Saudi Arabia human rights abuses? According to your principle of self determination, this is a matter the Saudis should resolve themselves. Hence why it was wrong for the US to topple the Iranian government more than 60 years ago. And what “actions” are you referring to? Your principle of self determination allows the US to do business with whomever it wants.
(Ps: the US state department criticizes human rights abuses in both Saudi Arabia and Iran every year)
If I am boring you, you are free to ignore my posts. I am not nor have I defended SA have I? You on the other hand are defending Iran. Iran also executes people in the public square, like for being an apostate for example. Since you are so bored take a moment and google the name Hossein Soodmand. Then come back and tell me if you are still bored Deschutes.
Human rights be damned if there is a buck to be made trading that useless black gold under the sand for high tech weapons of war made in the good ole’ USA.
Thank you. PPillar mix-uses the English language to make use of repeating the words ‘Iran’ and ‘attack’ in the same sentence to create a familiar neurological pattern. What shame! May the blood that gets spilled be upon the had of his family and children to create war! What he means to stay, is we are trying to find an excuse, a provocation to gain access to the world’s 2nd largest easy oil reserves on the cheap– bc the Pillar kids are not going to war!
“June 7, a group of six people — five men and one woman”
A third group of five people have been arrested… supposedly planning an attack on a third location.
Hopefully, they will provide some intelligence on the issue.
“Iran has largely escaped deadly incidents like the one that struck Tehran on Wednesday.”
Somebody below noted the inaccuracy of this claim, but it bears repeating.
Not only were Israeli assassinations of Iranian scientists terrorism, but the MEK was alone responsible for terror attacks killing thousands of Iranians inside Iran… and of course there was economic and cyber terrorism by the US.
“But while there is no evidence to suggest a direct Saudi role in the terrorist attack in Tehran”
Except for the well documented Saudi support for ISIS.
Ask Hillary.
“Iran and Saudi Arabia have been waging a brutal proxy war across the Middle East, with active conflicts in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen”
No evidence of Iranian support for the Houthis in Yemen has ever been presented, so calling them Iranian proxies is weak… as in not factual.
Saudi support for the Sunni insurgency in Iraq is well documented, with Saudi Arabia having been the single largest source of foreign fighters killed and captured while attacking US soldiers during the illegal occupation in our war based on lies, but calling the war in Iraq a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran is not really accurate either.
In Syria, Iranian aid for Assad does not make Assad an Iranian proxy, and with Iranian volunteers aiding Assad, that doesn’t meet the definition of “proxy” either.
Doesn’t TI have the resources and/or knowledge of the limitations of it’s staff to assign a more qualified journalist for these articles?
Please!!!
Spot on…you took on all the claims, that almost seem required when writing about Iran.
You caught them all.
More than I was willing to take on and very well written!
“In Syria, Iranian aid for Assad does not make Assad an Iranian proxy, and with Iranian volunteers aiding Assad, that doesn’t meet the definition of “proxy” either.”
Hassan Nasrallah June 24, 2016
“We are open about the fact that Hezbollah’s budget, its income, its expenses, everything it eats and drinks, its weapons and rockets, come from the Islamic Republic of Iran”
Check the definition of a proxy war again.
Source?
Hassan Nasrallah June 24, 2016
“We are open about the fact that Hezbollah’s budget, its income, its expenses, everything it eats and drinks, its weapons and rockets, come from the Islamic Republic of Iran”
This is what I’d like a source to which I can refer.
The New Yorker
News Desk
DECEMBER 13, 2016
HAVING TEA WITH HEZBOLLAH’S NO. 2
By Robin Wright
Google it.
Well it certainly wasn’t Nasrallah that would make such a provocative statement.
They are a big part of the government and security forces for Lebanon.
It seems we only go after countries who have policies of not dealing with Israel.
So, essentially, there is no ability to be a sovereign state…in Israel’s eyes and supported by the corrupt influences of AIPAC and other Israel First groups.
No point arguing ..at least they beat Israel and that will always be part of history.
Israel left a despicable amount of cluster bombs behind.
I’m astonished anyone would hold Israel in a better light.
Huh are you claiming he didnt say it? Well in that case you are right, there is no point in arguing if you are going to make up your own facts Grace. That is something of a habit with you Grace.
Here, but I don’t think it will make any difference for you.
https://english.alarabiya.net/en/2016/06/25/In-first-Hezbollah-s-Nasrallah-confirms-all-financial-support-comes-from-Iran.html
Al Arabiya?? A Saudi publication?
Actually, its owner, MBC began in London in 1991, then moved to Dubai in 2002..
So..like all media outlets..it reflects its owners opinions
Except in this case it was a direct quote from a Nasrallah’s speech so it reflected what Nasrallah said not an opinion.
Of course, it was a direct quote..of an adversary of the aforementioned media owner..
negative propaganda
It was reported widely, are you claiming he did not say it?
No of course not..
Forget about MBC, Al Jazeera or the New Yorker. This is Nasrallah saying it on June 24, 2016 on Lebanese TV Al Manar
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dbX1WqHTnuo
Yes..yes..AlManar is Hezbollah’s Media..therefore Positive Propaganda
It’s like the world wide international, independent media demonizing Trumps Twitter remarks to Iran, while the American Corporate MSM is slathering Comey, Comey, Comey..Russia,Russia ,Russia
True. I watched the video and the accompaning article by Dr. Majid Rafazadeh.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majid_Rafizadeh
One must wonder about someone named Majid writing for Al Aribya.
I suppose it will be war from Libya straight through the ME into Central Asia.
Fabulous.
Did you read my first statement? Weeks ago I noticed that you live in your own universe and you make your own facts. The source will not do anything for you.
The speech was broadcast by Al Manar TV station on Friday June 24, 2016.
It has been reported by the New Yorker, Al Arabiya, Al Jazeera and many others.
I watched your links and he obviously said it. I don’t think that’s common rhetoric for him.
I have admitted when I’m wrong..
and you are still wrong. first of all what he was stating wasn’t rhetoric it was fact. secondly if you didn’t know this fact how could you possibly know what is “common rhetoric” for this man?
“in SYRIA aid for ASSAD does not make ASSAD an iranian proxy”.
I’m astounded! Your brain took in that sentence then turned around and referenced Hassan Nasrallah who is the secretary general of Hesbollah, a Lebanese militia.
We all know what the definition of proxy is. The real question which needs asnwering here is do you know how to read?
ASSAD =/= NASRALLAH.
Hezbollah, which is directly financed and supported by Iran is the main backer of Assad in the civil war. If you cannot make that connection, then you should review the definition of proxy war again.
The idea that Hezbollah takes orders from Iran is also false.
They would be resisting Israeli attacks even if Iran cut off aid.
And, since the wingnuts supporting the extremist right wing governments of Israel have also called Hezbollah proxies of Syria, one needs to question their selective application of the word… it can’t be both… and proxies for neither is closer to the truth.
“The idea that Hezbollah takes orders from Iran is also false.”
1) A state does not need to give orders to another state or a non state actor for the process to be considered a proxy war. Check the definition of proxy war again.
2) I would agree with your statement if you replace Hezbollah by Israel and Iran by the US. Then again, replace Hezbollah by Saudi Arabia, and Iran by the US. Deal?
I falsely assumed that Sam had set you straight… but apparently not since you’re not making any sense.
ESL?
He is correct. Perhaps it is you who needs the ESL course.
I am opened to more education. Tell me straight up:
do Iran need to give orders to a state or a non state actor that is fighting Iran’s enemy in order to consider the situation a proxy war?
The definition of proxy doesn’t change when you put the word war after it.
Fine, but that’s not the question I asked you. You claimed that I am not making any sense, and maybe my ESL is to blame. That means you understand the definition of ” proxy war” better than I do. Then, please answer the following question:
DOES IRAN NEED TO GIVE ORDERS TO A STATE OR A NON STATE ACTOR THAT IS FIGHTING IRAN’S ENEMY IN ORDER TO CONSIDER THE SITUATION A PROXY WAR?
“And, since the wingnuts supporting the extremist right wing governments of Israel have also called Hezbollah proxies of Syria, one needs to question their selective application of the word”
Yeah but we should believe those wingnuts who support the theocracies in Iran and Syria .
The “theocracy ” in Syria were aided, allowed and encouraged to expand by the Anglo-American coalition in the hopes it would persuade Assad to lighten up; instead, Assad called the Russians..
And that refutes my point how?
I’m not disproving your point, more like adding footnotes ,
Glad you agree. I admire those willing to criticize their own.
Never met or even heard of any wingnuts who support Iran or Syria though.
And your mischaracterizations need some finesse.
You never met or heard of any wingnuts who support Syria and Iran? Wow you must live a very cloistered existance and one lacking mirrors.
Oh.
I get it.
You’re trying to appropriate a word for right wing extremists and change the definition.
Wingnuts never did excel in imagination.
Huh?
How am I an extremist, right wing or otherwise? And how is wingnut a term that describes only one side?
Yes, just like the brits and Americans that decided to go fight with isis does not make the US proxy or supportive of Isis in any way. Individuals have their free agency in this. All this is done to provoke Iran to anger. Truly ugly. Just to get the oil.
True.
But when a large percentage of the fighters trained and armed by the CIA in Jordan and Turkey end up joining ISIS, and when a large percentage of the weapons purchased by the US for “rebels” in Syria end up in the hands of ISIS, you do have to wonder if it’s a bug or a feature.
The evidence suggests it was a feature with built in deniability.
Also, I haven’t seen any reports about US citizens who joined ISIS having government support or encouragement, but there have been reports that British citizens were cleared for travel by their intelligence agencies with the full knowledge of where they were going and why… to both Syria and Libya… due to the UK’s government regime change agenda for both targeted countries.
The US has certainly looked the other way while our supposed allies directly aided ISIS and al Qaida.
Not ONE story about Reality Winner and The Intercept’s bungling of a massive leak? I think you all should be dusting off your resumes because not too many democrats at the CIA, NSA and elsewhere will be willing to betray their country to make the opposing party look bad if the rat reporters are going to out them to the FBI.
WTF?
ISIS is attacking Iran in the name of Islam but Iran is already an Islamic country to begin with. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Qatar,Lybia, Jordan, etc. etc. etc. are all Islamic countries already.
This is not making any sense at all. What am I missing? Is that all they can figure out to do is attack each other ? What is the point, exactly ? I am just not buying any of this.
This is a fairly pedestrian response and simplistic answer, but given the nature of the post. Yes, they are all Muslim, but think Sunni v. Shia (not to mention Arab v. Persian, to some extent). If easier to understand, think about the Catholics v. the Protestants in Ireland’s Troubles. Technically they were all Christians, but…. Also, it will also make sense if you don’t try to classify these conflicts in purely religious terms. That makes things easier to frame in western minds, but doesn’t always capture realities on the ground.
Calm down Gary, it’s nothing. Just go back to sleep.
What you’re missing, beyond sectarian differences that always exist, is that Iran is at war with ISIS. There’s a lot more to geopolitical conflict than “which demographics hate one another.”
Gary, ISIS is a Western proxy force. It’s basically a Western-backed attack on Iran. This is how the scum in Langley roll these days.
http://gunsandbutter.org/blog/2017/06/07/langleys-jihadists-from-the-mujaheddin-to-isil
Very good article: only one thing to remember– Iran has the world’s 2nd largest easily accessible oil reserves and they are going after it par lentremise des Saudis who obligingly are taking Yemen.watch forit.
That “strange period” was also when we were using Iranian territory for a transport route to Afghanistan.
Mr. Hussain
A good article showing some of the complexities in the Middle East. Paul Pillar correctly pointed out that the terrorist attack in Iran required a great deal of planning (and time) so it’s very unlikely that Trump’s visit to Saudi Arabia had anything to do with the attack – nor was Saudi Arabia behind the terrorism in Tehran. ISIS is a global terrorist organization claiming attacks throughout the Middle East and Europe. Islamic terrorist organizations like ISIS, the TTP and al-Qaeda (in Iraq) have regularly targeted Shiites. The US obviously had nothing to do with the terrorist attack in Tehran either. Shia Mosques continue to be a favorite target for Sunni terrorists.
Trump’s lack of experience showed when he visited Saudi Arabia. He condemned Qatar for their support for terrorism apparently without realizing the strategic importance of Qatar to the US military. He quickly backtracked taking the role of a mediator in the GCC dispute between Qatar and several other Arab countries including Saudi Arabia. Trump is a loose cannon mainly because he is clueless about ME geopolitics politics. Qatar supports the Muslim Brotherhood while the Saudis (and Egypt, etc.) consider the MB to be a terrorist organization. The MB had little choice but to reply violently after the Egyptian government’s bloody crack down on the MB protests after Morsi was ousted in a coup.
While Iran could certainly turn up their support for the Houthis in Yemen, an escalation against the US seems far more unlikely in Syria where the US is fighting ISIS. This benefits the Syrian government and Russia. Additionally, the IRG has already taken significant losses in Syria. The same holds true in Iraq where the US is helping to retake ISIS controlled territory lessening the threat to Shiites in Iraq and Iran.
Very good points Craig. I think it would be easiest for Iran to escalate in Yemen without consequences, however it is easy for things to spiral out of control in a situation where hostilities suddenly escalate. Attacks in Iraq and Syria could happen, especially as the U.S. starts to bump against Iranian backed forces in the south of the country.
I guess other than an armed drone roughly the size of a predator was shot down by US forces in Syria today after reportedly shooting at a US patrol. To write as much about this and not bring up the Iranian situations in Iraq pertaining to actual strategy that resulted in al qaida in Iraq never really following chain of command to Pakistan is pretty bad. But the absence in US media of isis’ baathist roots and the fact that Syria is still largely ruled by Baathists is inexcusable and has been for years.
Thanks for your reply. In a war zone, Trump could easily allow a dangerous situation to spiral out of control.
Mona’s head must have exploded when she read this.
Craig,
Good post, but I need to take exception with a few points that you made:
You stated: “Paul Pillar correctly pointed out that the terrorist attack in Iran required a great deal of planning (and time) so it’s very unlikely that Trump’s visit to Saudi Arabia had anything to do with the attack – nor was Saudi Arabia behind the terrorism in Tehran.”
This is technically incorrect. The prep time and sophistication of the attack do point to these sleeper agents being in the country long before Trump’s visit, but that does not mean that they were not there at the behest of Saudi Arabia. Every nation has sleeper cells within the borders of their adversaries, and these cells remain dormant until the order is given for them to strike.
Trumps visit and the blaring green light that he gave the Saudis may have been the indication Riyadh needed that it was time to activate one of these cells, which culminated in the attack.
So to assume that just because the attackers were prepping for the event long before Trump’s visit does not automatically negate the strong possibility that the attack was at the behest of an emboldened Saudi Arabia.
You stated: ” The US obviously had nothing to do with the terrorist attack in Tehran either.”
This is also an assumption and the furthest thing from obvious. Please remember that the U.S. has a history of funding and arming militant orgs inside Iran for the purpose of fighting against the regime. The most recent being Jundullah back in the mid to late 2000s. Here is a PBS article laying out that support:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2009/10/jundallah.html
So to categorically deny that the CIA had no part, or at least knowledge, of the attack is to deny the documented history that we have in funding and supporting such actions inside of Iran.
Just my 2 cents, but I don’t think it’s too far fetched to believe that the Saudis were at the center of this attack, or that the CIA isn’t supporting such actors within Iran.
“……..Every nation has sleeper cells within the borders of their adversaries, and these cells remain dormant until the order is given for them to strike……..”
There is no evidence to support that Saudi Arabia keeps ISIS-supported sleeper cells in Iran. There is always that possibility, but it seems unlikely to me. Was Saudi Arabia also behind the attacks claimed by ISIS in the UK and elsewhere in Europe? You can just as easily say that Iran is stirring up trouble with the Shia in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. In addition, it’s more ridiculous to suggest that the US is working with ISIS to bomb Iran. Certainly operations like the Stuxnet virus are US and Israel-inspired, but ISIS is a significant stretch. Consider that the US is fighting ISIS in Iraq to limit the threat not only to Iraq, but Iran as well.
Thanks.
Regarding Anglo-American interests;
Sunni Muslims are more beneficial
ISIS is a conglomeration of ex-Baathists and American trained-Saudi financed well seasoned global jihadists..
ISIS acts as NATO’s foreign legion
Qatari state network, Al Jazeera, had been questioning Saudi Arabia and UAE strategy and tactics regarding Yemen and Syria
USA Support of the Muslim Brotherhood is as old as the Arab Spring, and stretches back to the breakup of the Soviet Union!
Alright. That much is true.
Very good article, as usual, from Murtaza!
They certainly underestimated the lows we would go to in their capital. Otherwise, the
superman fighters of the Revolutionary Guard would have stepped up security there and mostly the Mausoleum.
And what country is so proud of their female fighters.
The Trio of Terror the U.S., SA and IS.
Very curious the name IS is the same as a country’s.
And what country is so proud of their female fighters? IS.
I’m not strongly suggesting anything, but this sure seems exactly the sort of thing the US was looking for when it de-listed mujahadeen e-khalq from the FTO. Hope eventually we’ll find out (via credible evidence from Iran or journalists or whatever) exactly who these attackers were and who aided them.
Good point.
Nicely said. TRUMP = terrorist redneck ugly moron president
From this morning’s 6/8, Real News Interview; Aaron Mate & former senior Iranian diplomat, Seyed Hossein Mousavian
https://youtu.be/8hp6se4pyPw
I don’t like how you mention the claim of Saudi involvement, then proceed? assuming it’s false without refuting it or even openly dismissing it out of hand.
As the U.S. gets closer to producing as much oil as it uses, the need to use force to prevent disruption in the Middle East declines. Unfortunately, the desire to *create* disruption in order to improve export revenues may replace it… I think it would make a lot of sense to put heavy tariffs on both imports and exports of bulk fossil fuel products (phased in slowly, and at first temporarily exempting Canada from which the largest amount is imported) in the interest of completely compartmentalizing the U.S. energy economy from the rest of the world. Then we might finally get our politicians to stop getting involved in this stuff.
Saudi Arabia having signed a $110 billion weapons deal with the US, worth $350 billion dollar over 10 years & self-sufficient in weapons by 2030. Saudi’s military spending is now close to that of Russia. This is not going to bring stability in the region, to the contrary. Really wondering what this alliance is up to. There’s nothing wrong with the people of Iran.
From CNBC:
“Trump’s deal with the Saudis solidifies a decades-long alliance with the world’s largest oil exporter and will be worth $350 billion over 10 years.”
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/22/defense-stocks-rally-on-110-billion-us-saudi-arabia-weapons-deal.html
In other news:
Saudi Arabia Hopes To Go Self-Sufficient With Weapons By 2030
http://globalsentinelng.com/2017/05/21/saudi-arabia-hopes-go-self-sufficient-weapons-2030/
The United States did not sign $110 billion weapons deal with Saudi Arabia. The US has a collection of intended sales documents, letters of intent and evaluations of the Saudi defense need.
Thanks for clarifying. Let’s hope this does not all marerialize…
“newly threatened”? the hell? not a history major, i take it?
just a recent example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jundallah_(Iran)
never mind the losses they suffered over the years keeping drug runners from coming over the afghanistan border (who funds and enables those traffickers again?)
http://www.thenational.ae/world/middle-east/iran-steps-up-war-on-drugs-as-neighbouring-afghanistans-opium-trade-booms
and – as many iranians themselves have said – if not for their intervention in syria it would be a LOT worse by now.
i’m assuming you don’t count dead nuclear scientists either.
http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Iran/Israel-behind-assassinations-of-Iran-nuclear-scientists-Yaalon-hints-411473
or that little skirmish they had with saddam (good thing he did all that on his own, rite?!?!)
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/26/world/us-secretly-gave-aid-to-iraq-early-in-its-war-against-iran.html?pagewanted=all
i also love this “Paul Pillar” “nonresident senior fellow” at the Made Up Think Tank for Thinking About Things That Require Thoughts ™ (and CIA analyst!) and his talk of “asymmetric attack” from the IRGC because they “believe” the saudis were involved. why on EARTH would those crazy wankers ever think that?!?!? what kind of crazy tin foil hat person would ever…oops…
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/hillary-clinton-wikileaks-email-isis-saudi-arabia-qatar-us-allies-funding-barack-obama-knew-all-a7362071.html
NEXT.
The Saudis are done. I’ve been repeating this, those same terrorists we’ve been backing, via the GCC, will overthrow the regime this year or early next year.
It will be hilarious watching the US justify trying to deal with an unapologetic terrorist government. The GCC is about to break up.
Iran would hand Saudi Arabia its ass even if the US was backing Saudi Arabia in any direct confrontation between Iran and Saudi Arabia.
Just as Iran would hand the US its ass if US was dumb enough to attack Iran directly.
I’m going to enjoy watching Iran r*tfu** America’s supposed “allies” the Saudis. The only people in America who think the Saudis are America’s allies, are America’s politicians and business/financial elites, and some subset of the Pentagon and State Departments.
I’ve never heard of any reasonable person in America who sees any benefit to a US-Saudi alliance. And America and Americans will be a lot better off the day we engage in full abandonment of our alliance with Saudi Arabia and full rapprochement with Iran.
Prime example of what Saudis think about their alliance(s) with the West:
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/jun/08/saudi-arabia-footballers-ignore-minutes-silence-for-london-attack-victims
“I’ve never heard of any reasonable person in America who sees any benefit to a US-Saudi alliance. ”
Most Americans have benefited from cheap oil not just top businessmen. That is a fact. Feel free to deny it.
“America and Americans will be a lot better off the day we engage in full abandonment of our alliance with Saudi Arabia and full rapprochement with Iran.”
Based on what? Saudi Arabia has poor human rights records. Iran has poor human rights records. Saudi Arabia finances extremists. Iran finances extremists. Saudi Arabia is involved in many conflicts in the region. Iran is involved in many conflicts in the region. There is no democracy in Saudi Arabia. There is no democracy in Iran. Saudi religious extremists hate Western cultures and influence. Iranian extremists hate Western culture and influence.
The only difference between Saudi Arabia and Iran with regards to the US is that Saudi political leaders support the US and Iranians do not. What benefits to gain with a rapprochement with Iran? Top Iranian leaders are against it anyway!
You can speculate and say Saudi Arabia was responsible for 9/11, but so far US courts have decided that Iran is responsible for terrorist acts against US citizens and the UN has decided that Hezbollah (backed by Iran) is responsible for terrorist acts against Lebanese civilians.
Very interesting, a US citizen wishing that a foreign state (Iran) responsible for terrorist acts against US citizens would “hand the US its ass”.
Really, most Americans, including all the ones who don’t have the true price of all the externalities priced into the cost of a gallon of gasoline–cost of military, cost of direct subsidies, cost environmental degradation . . . .
Or did you mean most Americans who don’t actually get the bulk of their gasoline from Saudi Arabia which amounts to only, at most, 11% from Saudi Arabia. The vast majority of oil consumed by Americans as gasoline is produced domestically or comes from Canada, Mexico, Venezuela and like Nigeria or one of the African nations.
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=727&t=6
Plenty of statistics available on this topic if you’d like to educate yourself instead of spout your know-nothing inanities like usual.
As for the rest, I’d suggest you do your own research before I give you free education on America’s history with Iran relative to its history with Saudi Arabia.
And as an American and human being, if America was to unlawfully and without sufficient legal and moral cause attack a nation like Iran that has never attacked America, America would deserve to have its ass handed to it.
I’m a humanist before I’m a nationalist which is an accident of my birth. Similarly, it is argued, and many have, that America’s support of “terrorism” going on the last 50 + years, and the body count that has resulted, dwarfs anything Iran has ever been responsible for, much less any harm Iranian nationals have ever inflicted on America’s citizens. In fact quite the contrary when it comes to harms directly attributable by America and its citizens on the people of Iran.
So maybe you should fuck off with your specious ahistorical bullshit and respond to commenters who are as barely informed about the world and its history than you are rather than me.
I am not sure how your ignorant rant proves any superior intellect.
1) Starting from this:
“Plenty of statistics available on this topic if you’d like to educate yourself instead of spout your know-nothing inanities like usual.”
a) Oil prices is not only a function of domestic production. It is a global market. If Venezuela oil is cheaper than Texas oil, then consumers will buy Venezuelan oil. That process will push Texas to find a way to reduce its oil price. Replace Venezuela with Saudi Arabia or Kuwait. Do you get that basic economic point?
b) America oil import has consistently increased from 1985 until 2005-2006. That is a period of economic growth that has benefited most Americans. Pretending that oil has nothing to do with it is just absurd.
2) Then this:
“As for the rest, I’d suggest you do your own research before I give you free education on America’s history with Iran relative to its history with Saudi Arabia.”
Yes, please I would love the free education. Make sure you include in your history lesson that US courts and the UN has blamed Iran for terrorist acts against civilians.
Your comment is even more interesting. A US citizen describing himself as a “humanist” and a “nationalist” wants rapprochement with an autocratic regime that is responsible for terrorists acts that resulted in the death of US citizens and other civilians. In the meantime the autocratic regime states it does want rapprochement because Western culture and influence is bad.
I think you should stick to your incoherent rant.
You are literally an idiot and I won’t bother trying to educate you or refute your straw man arguments and not sequiturs.
Again, for the dumbos like you, it is your claim that “most Americans benefit from Saudi oil production”. You haven’t proved that even remotely. Moreover, that is not the same as me arguing you should prove your assertion accounting for “externalities” or that “benefit is limited” given Saudi oil is but a small part of the oil imported by America which most Americans may or may not benefit from directly or indirectly. So shove your dumb straw man argument up your ass and address your central contention, and do so by establishing the “net benefit” given all the externalities not priced into oil-gasoline before you claim “most Americans benefit” (without defining precisely the exact nature of that “benefit”) and how much that relative benefit is to “most Americans”. Because as is self-evident that benefit is “marginal” given the overall amount of oil directly attributable to Saudi exports that become America’s imports.
Moreover, you appear to know literally less than nothing about the law or America’s history vis a vis Iran and Saudi Arabia and it would be pointless to educate you. So you can shove that “whataboutery” portion of your response as well.
And again, just for the dumbos in the audience like you:
And the “autocratic” regime of the US doesn’t want rapprochement with Iran for far too many immoral reasons to even list, but I’ve got better things to do than give you a US-Iran and world history lesson.
The agenda or policy of the American government is not reflective of what the vast majority of the people of America want (even with bad educations and level of propaganda they are exposed to) anymore than the Iranian regime is reflective of what the vast majority of the people of Iran want vis a vis their relationship with America (and the level of propaganda they are exposed to). So take your non-sequitur about what the two regimes want and shove it as well.
Nevertheless, none of that obviates the fact America and British have engaged in horrible actions toward the people of Iran for decades that far outstrips in magnitude and frequency anything the Iranian people (or its present regime) has ever done to America (or its purported “interests”). That’s just a historical fact well known to all those who are historically literate unlike you.
Most citizens benefit from economic growth. Economic growth allows low unemployment, higher purchasing power, investments in technology, education and healthcare. The low cost of energy has allowed economic growth in America for decades. Without that economic growth the US would not be in the current position to use technology to mitigate the cost of using certain energy sources. That is the benefit that you cannot and will not comprehend because it does not fit your views.
Again, oil is part of a global market. The US or Chile do not have to import oil directly from Saudi Arabia to benefit from cheap oil. However, policies in a huge producer of oil such as Saudi Arabia will affect oil prices in the US or Chile regardless if they import oil from there. You have a massive ignorance of basic economics. Moreover, you will not accept any explanations from somebody who disagrees with you. So I suggest you start reading some economic books.
Your comment is full of incoherent rants, name callings, weird logic. No substance at all. At the end you cannot provide any factually incorrect statements I made while you claim you know better.
Very interesting. A US citizen who described himself as a “humanist” and a ” nationalist” and who blame the US for supporting Muslim dictatorships is asking for “rapprochement” to another Muslim dictatorship whose US courts and the UN blame for terrorist acts against civilians including US citizens.
They, at very least, allowed our embassy to be over-run and our corps taken hostage for quite a while. Not an attack? Aren’t you a lawyer?
It should be noted that Iran welcomed in all refugees from Afghanistan, during the years when the civil war was a proxy war between NATO and the Soviets, during the years when the civil war was between Afghan warlords, and when NATO invaded and was trying to crush all dissent.
It also welcomed in all refugees from Iraq, from the days right after Iraq was bombing Iran, including with WMDS, with the assistance and support of NATO not just during the civil war, but during the NATO invasion and while it was trying to crush all dissent (under the command of people like the Butcher of Fallujah, Mattis) .
It did this while under American lead economic attack, and won praise from the UN for what it was doing. And while the treatment of the possibly alQeda people sounds very generous compared to the usual isolation in refugee camps with no chance of getting anything but subsistence handouts, it is pretty restrictive compared with how Iran treats the refugees that cross it’s borders, which is housing in the cities, schooling beside it’s own children, access to its universal health care, and work permits for men and women refugees.
Now that the USA has secured favorite military supplier position to SA, a nice little war with Iran makes a lot of sense.
Until you realize that nothing they’re willing to give the Sauds will come close to matching the cutting edge, fresh out of the factory, month out of development, mass produced stuff Iran would be fielding.
Yes, Iran spends ridiculously little on their military, but that is because producing tools, dies, and mothballed assembly lines for final assembly, and the few things not being mass produced for the consumer market, costs a lot less than making multithousand dollar custom toilet seats, or filling ammo dumps with stuff that is outdated against everyone but third world regimes.
I’m sorry but I have trouble swallowing this allegation without any backing evidence or a source:
What constitutes direct evidence and did the author actually make contact with whomever is managing the investigation in Iran? I somehow doubt the latter.
Good catch!