P5 +1 Iran nuclear talks went swimmingly! Netanyahu is fuming

Israel/PalestineMiddle EastUS Politics
on 144 Comments
0414 Iran conference full 380
 Iran conference in Istanbul April 14,2012 (Tolga Adanali/Reuters)

Diplomats met in Istanbul on Saturday for the first formal negotiation in over a year between Iran and P5+1 (the United States, Russia, China, England, France, Germany, and the UK).  After 10 hours of intensive negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, it appears the outcome is being hailed favorably by all parties; “the most positive atmosphere in nearly a decade” ending with an agreement for diplomats to prepare “concrete proposals for resolving the impasse“.

Netanyahu is ticked!

CNN:

Israel on Sunday slammed a decision by key world powers to place no new restrictions on Iran before the next meeting about its nuclear program in late May.

“My initial impression is that Iran has been given a freebie,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said. “It has got five weeks to continue enrichment without any limitation, any inhibition.”

On Saturday, negotiators said “constructive and useful” talks had taken place in Istanbul.

“We have agreed that the Non-Proliferation Treaty forms a key basis for what must be serious engagement to ensure all the obligations under the treaty are met by Iran while fully respecting Iran’s right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy,” EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton said following the meeting with Iran’s top negotiator, Saeed Jalili.

Christian Science Monitor:

Perhaps most important to the Iranians may have been the agreement that the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) is the framework to ensure that Iran’s nuclear programs are peaceful.

……..

“The important point is that we believe the American people are paying a severe cost for [believing] false and imaginary threats” about the dangers of Iran, said Jalili. War fears have helped boost oil prices, and therefore the price at the pump.

Iran’s stated opposition to weapons of mass destruction – including nuclear weapons – is a “great opportunity,” Jalili said. The Iranian negotiating team detected significant change at the negotiating table.

“They should not speak to Iranians with the language of threats and a strategy of pressure,” Jalili told the Monitor. “We consider it a step forward, and a positive one, when after 15 months they themselves change their attitudes and approach, and say we want to have talks for cooperation.”

On the European and American side, there was a belief that it was Iran that had dramatically adjusted its approach. In some previous talks, Iran refused to discuss its nuclear program at all; in January last year, two preconditions imposed by the Iranian side – that the P5+1 accept Iranian enrichment at the outset, and the lifting of UN sanctions – scuttled the talks before an agenda could even be set.

……..

Veterans of Iran’s past negotiation teams said they could not remember such positive messages, since perhaps the 2003 talks at which Iran agreed with European negotiators to suspend their nascent enrichment program – as they did until 2005.

I am very relieved and hope this is the beginning of a new, long lasting, positive approach. It was just last week that several political analysts were remarking on the intractability of the hard-line “Surrender now or we’ll bomb you later” approach  requiring Iran to give up the Fordo enrichment plant.  On background, CBS reported  Netanyahu had issued a demand last month that Iran dismantle nuclear research facility at Fordo. Last week the Obama administration followed with the exact same demand.

NYT:

The hard-line approach would require the country’s military leadership to give up the Fordo enrichment plant outside the holy city of Qum, and with it a huge investment in the one facility that is most hardened against airstrikes.

Regardless of who thought of that plan, it sure stinks.

Next on the agenda are the talks with the same parties in Baghdad, late May. We can all breathe a sigh of relief just a little bit longer.

About Annie Robbins

Annie Robbins is Editor at Large for Mondoweiss, a mother, a human rights activist and a ceramic artist. She lives in the SF bay area. Follow her on Twitter @anniefofani

Other posts by .


Posted In:

144 Responses

  1. justicewillprevail
    April 15, 2012, 3:50 pm

    I don’t believe that Iran has been unreasonable. There was a deal to be had via Turkey a year or so ago. It is a wonder Yahoo and his gangsters don’t stage a little sideshow to divert attention and ruin the talks, as they have done so many times in the past when important negotiations have threatened the Israeli war hawks and ideologues.

    • Shingo
      April 15, 2012, 5:43 pm

      It is a wonder Yahoo and his gangsters don’t stage a little sideshow to divert attention and ruin the talks

      That might be problematic seeing as the hype about the Iranian nuclear program was a distraction from the IP conflict.

  2. eljay
    April 15, 2012, 4:02 pm

    >> “My initial impression is that Iran has been given a freebie,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said. “It has got five weeks to continue enrichment without any limitation, any inhibition.”

    Poor little Netanyasshole and his Jewish state. Maybe he can just increase the pace of the glorious Jewish state’s limitless colonization for the next five weeks or, I dunno, kill some Palestinians. That ought to soothe the poor baby’s feelings. :-(

  3. yourstruly
    April 15, 2012, 4:08 pm

    a nuclear enrichment agreement acceptable to both the u.s. & iran will infuriate the zionist entity and its israel firster appendages here in america. president obama will have to choose between upholding what’s been negotiated or tossing in with the israel lobby and scuttling what his diplomats have achieved. hopefully he’ll opt for supporting the agreement and the stage will be set for the election campaign to center around whether or not the agreement is good for america. i believe we can win this one, because having seen what talk of war does to gas prices, the public wants nothing of starting another war. considering how viciously israel and its u.s. supporters will oppose the agreement, might a reassessment of our government’s unconditional support of the zionist entity be another outcome?

  4. PeaceThroughJustice
    April 15, 2012, 4:13 pm

    Al Jazeera’s interview yesterday with Dan Meridor was all about Israel’s relations with Iran. It showed that Al Jazeera still has a little fight left in it and hasn’t been completely emasculated–

    “This idea that Iran supposedly wants to wipe Israel out — as we know, Ahmadinejad didn’t say that he plans to exterminate Israel. …”

    • Annie Robbins
      April 15, 2012, 6:56 pm

      thanks ptj

    • RoHa
      April 15, 2012, 7:57 pm

      The money quote:

      Meridor: [Iran’s leaders] all come basically ideologically, religiously with the statement that Israel is an unnatural creature, it will not survive. They didn’t say ‘we’ll wipe it out’, you are right, but [that] it will not survive, it is a cancerous tumor, it should be removed;

      http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=30317

      • talknic
        April 15, 2012, 10:51 pm

        They lie and lie and lie …. and then lie again… even when being partially truthful “Israel is an unnatural creature”

        “Israel”???? Actually it was the “zionist regime in Jerusalem”!! A regime is not a country. Regimes can be changed by elections.

    • piotr
      April 16, 2012, 8:28 pm

      Does Qatar want Iran involved in a war?

      When it suites them, Qatar can influence Al Jazeera, but here there was no particular reasons.

  5. asherpat
    April 15, 2012, 5:35 pm

    In 2003, an organisation called “Crisis Resolution” or something, issues a report called “Iran – time to talk”. On the cover of the report was a photo of a sinister B-52 releasing dozens of bombs. The report conculded that the best way to resolve the crisis is to talk to Iran because Iranian leaders are rational, etc.

    When I emailed them asking for the terms of reference of such report, they went silent…

    Just like the talks with Iran, for more than 10 years, Iran is fudging the gullible West, but in my opinion, many Westerners, including of course most of the frequenters of this blog, wish, yearn for Iran to have a nuclear bomb.

    • eljay
      April 15, 2012, 6:29 pm

      >> Just like the talks with Iran, for more than 10 years, Iran is fudging the gullible West …

      Iran’s got nothing in the Jewish state, which has been fudging the gullible – and, too often, accommodating – West for over 60 years.

      >> … many Westerners … yearn for Iran to have a nuclear bomb.

      I don’t yearn for Iran to have nukes but, given the existential threats that continue to be made against it by nuclear-armed aggressor nations like Israel and the U.S., I fully appreciate why Iran might desire a nuclear deterrent capability.

    • justicewillprevail
      April 15, 2012, 7:13 pm

      Yes, of course I dream of it all the time. Your assertion betrays your absurd childish state of mind. Saves you having to think, I suppose.

    • Shingo
      April 15, 2012, 7:32 pm

      In 2003, an organisation called “Crisis Resolution” or something, issues a report called “Iran – time to talk”. On the cover of the report was a photo of a sinister B-52 releasing dozens of bombs. 

      The report conculded that the best way to resolve the crisis is to talk to Iran because Iranian leaders are rational, etc

      That is the conclusion shared by all 16 US intelligence agencies, which reported that finding in the 2007 and 2010 NIE.  Is also what Dennis Blair, General Martin Dempsey (head of JCOS)  both reported in their testimony to the US Senate.

      http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CEYQtwIwBA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DOP9LvRiFHKc&ei=ulmLT9a_MqatiQfznIXoCQ&usg=AFQjCNFEPa1QMZV9eU4JkoFnBqcX1vvVMg&sig2=8pas3eanWtX-EwGFOD1l1A

      Just like the talks with Iran, for more than 10 years, Iran is fudging the gullible West

      In which case, they are also fudging the gullible Mossad, who reported this year than Iran has not even decided make a nuke.

      but in my opinion, many Westerners, including of course most of the frequenters of this blog, wish, yearn for Iran to have a nuclear bomb.

      Your opinion is clearly based on what you read on tabloids and the back of cereal boxes.p

    • AllenBee
      April 15, 2012, 7:37 pm

      “In 2003, an organisation called “Crisis Resolution” or something, issues a report called “Iran – time to talk”. On the cover of the report was a photo of a sinister B-52 releasing dozens of bombs. The report conculded that the best way to resolve the crisis is to talk to Iran because Iranian leaders are rational, etc.

      When I emailed them asking for the terms of reference of such report, they went silent…”

      what’s your point?

      • Mooser
        April 17, 2012, 1:48 pm

        That the US is selling surplus B-52s to Iran?

    • Daniel Rich
      April 15, 2012, 7:53 pm

      @ asherpat,

      Q: … including of course most of the frequenters of this blog, wish, yearn for Iran to have a nuclear bomb.

      R: It’s always an honor to meet mind-readers. How come you never called me after I put up that humongous billboard ‘ Needed, clairvoyant. You know where to reach me’?

    • lyn117
      April 16, 2012, 1:46 am

      And like the talks with Iraq, I guess, when it was fudging the gullible West about its WMDs – oh wait, we were fudging our own gullible selves. Well, I guess some people aren’t content with being fooled once, and also look forward to the repeat of a major disaster, in all likelihood, a much bigger one.

  6. CloakAndDagger
    April 15, 2012, 5:44 pm

    I would love to be optimistic about this outcome, but I fear that it is the prelude to the second talks being sabotaged well before the next five weeks elapse. There is not a snowball’s chance in hell that the Nutty Yahoo is going to let any progress with Iran stand. The biggest existential threat to Israel is a thaw between the US and Iran.

    Cue the usual suspects in congress howling their dismay at this betrayal of the jewish state by this (so-called) muslim POTUS. I can see McCain/Lieberman scurrying back from Syria to pronounce gloom and doom if we allow ourselves to be duped by the Iranians.

    I am no supporter of Obama – far, far from it. However, I can’t help but feel a twinge of sympathy for his predicament – although, he could have avoided this by being far more decisive in the first 100 days of his presidency. It is now a damned if you do, and damned if you don’t situation. If he reconciles with Iran, he will feel the onslaught of AIPAC’s minions for the next 7 months. If, instead, he decides to go to war with Iran, he will feel the wrath of an awakened American populace that is war-weary.

    If I were to be his advisor, I would advise him to forget about the AIPAC support. Appeasing them is not going to bring him their support anyway. Forget AIPAC and forget the Evangelicals. Go to the nation and make your case for making peace with Iran and point out the treachery of a congress bought off by AIPAC. I bet he would win in a landslide if he did that.

    But, what do I know?

    • AllenBee
      April 15, 2012, 7:34 pm

      you nailed it cloak and dagger — Obama, take your case to the nation, AIPAC be damned. That’s what real leaders do —

      heh
      “Real men go to Tehran.”
      gutless men send MEK assassins to Tehran.

    • Shingo
      April 15, 2012, 7:45 pm

      Great post ClickandDagger.

      The danger with AIPAC is that they play for keeps a d they play dirty. Every politician in Washington has skeletons in their closet, and there is a mutual code of silence they all respect with regard to one another’s dirty laundry.

      AIPAC are not just a lobby, they are a unit of Israeli intelligence. They have bugged, filmed, and gone through the private details of every member of Congress with a fine toothed comb.

      They have all the dirt on the law makers, the name of every hooker, young boy, drub dealer they have come into contact with, and they will use it.

    • Daniel Rich
      April 15, 2012, 7:55 pm

      @ CloakAndDagger,

      I concur.

    • Annie Robbins
      April 15, 2012, 10:46 pm

      Go to the nation and make your case for making peace with Iran and point out the treachery of a congress bought off by AIPAC. I bet he would win in a landslide if he did that.

      yeah, i would so love that. it’s probably more likely than flying pigs but not much.

      I fear that it is the prelude to the second talks being sabotaged well before the next five weeks elapse.

      okay, it’s 5 weeks. that’s not too long to remember your prediction. i will for sure write about it and if you notice something skipped just say something.

      • CloakAndDagger
        April 15, 2012, 11:03 pm

        I would be delighted to be proven wrong on this.

      • Annie Robbins
        April 16, 2012, 2:26 pm

        if /when you’re right i will include it in the article. we can be on lobby/ iran watch together. keep in mind tho, as i mentioned in my sullivan/goldberg article, i view this as a competition for media attention between iran and the settlements.

      • CloakAndDagger
        April 17, 2012, 4:21 pm

        And so the games begin…

        http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/154825#.T43KsjLLzfh

        Israel has not given the U.S. a commitment to hold off from striking Iran while the U.S. and other countries are holding talks with the Persian theocracy, said Defense Minister Ehud Barak Tuesday.

        In an interview on IDF Radio’s morning news show, Barak said that he does not believe the attempts to stop Iran’s nuclear program through negotiation will succeed.

        “We are not part of the negotiations,” he said, “but we think the Americans have a goal of stopping Iran – yet we believe that the chances are not high that the sort of steps that are being taken will cause Iran to fold its nuclear program.”

      • CloakAndDagger
        April 17, 2012, 6:24 pm

        And here comes AIPAC’s flock on cue….

        From MJ Rosenberg’s blog:
        http://mjayrosenberg.com/2012/04/17/israel-lobby-releases-official-response-to-iran-diplomacy-make-it-go-away-3/

        ISRAEL LOBBY RELEASES OFFICIAL RESPONSE TO IRAN DIPLOMACY: MAKE IT GO AWAY!

        http://www.aipac.org/en/in-the-news?newsid={D8D83B12-E355-4B33-87C4-A22BFE22BC2F}

        U.S. lawmakers on Monday, April 16, pushed for more sanctions against Iran after talks between Tehran and global powers failed to stop Iran from developing its nuclear program, Reuters reported. Although the talks between Iran and six world powers were described as “constructive” by the European Union’s foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, some U.S. lawmakers said they were unimpressed. Senator Mark Kirk (R-IL) and several other U.S. legislators have been pressuring the White House to get tougher on Iran and are pushing for a range of additional penalties against the Islamic Republic. “We have five weeks to convince the Iranians that the sanctions we passed in December were only a first step,” said Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ), who along with Kirk helped design the sanctions that were signed into law in December.

      • CloakAndDagger
        April 17, 2012, 8:31 pm

        Israel is starting to turn the crank:

        From the Mossad rag, Debka File:
        http://www.debka.com/article/21919/

        Israel: Obama’s secret dealings with Iran conflict with US-Israeli understandings

        The fundamental rift on Iran between US President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu burst into the open Monday, April 16 when high-ranking Israeli officials close to Netanyahu directly accused the president of reneging on the US-Israeli understandings reached ahead of the Istanbul talks between the six powers and Iran on April 14.

        I hope that they are right about this bit:

        Israeli official sources now suspect that in their secret contacts, the US has granted Iran far-reaching concessions on its nuclear program – more than Israel would find acceptable. The formal talks in Istanbul and in Baghdad on May 23 are seen as nothing but a device to screen the real business the US and Iran have already contracted on the quiet.

      • Annie Robbins
        April 17, 2012, 10:40 pm

        ouch! i hope they are right too. thanks for keeping us updated C&D

      • CloakAndDagger
        April 17, 2012, 11:25 pm

        Yeah, I am afraid my secret desire to be proven wrong is not going to materialize. Here are the congress hoards I was afraid would come out of the woodwork:

        http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/16/us-usa-iran-congress-idUSBRE83F18320120416

        The sabotage is in progress…

        U.S. lawmakers say Iran talks inadequate, urge more penalties

        Menendez said it was crucial that Congress pass the legislation quickly to send a message to the Iranian government that the United States “won’t allow them to use the Baghdad talks to stall for more time to advance their covert nuclear program.”

        Covert nuclear program? Does the honorable gentleman (and I use the term very loosely) have any proof of this, given that our 16 Intelligence agencies don’t?

      • Annie Robbins
        April 18, 2012, 12:27 am

        well what do you think of this? The stage is set for a deal with Iran:
        http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/is-a-deal-with-iran-in-the-works/2012/04/17/gIQAbaT0OT_story.html

        maybe it will be a showdown between obama, intel,military vs israel and congress. still, we should be augmenting all this w/focus on settlements.

      • CloakAndDagger
        April 18, 2012, 1:24 am

        Its a good article. I believe that both the P5+1 and Iranian sides are sincere in seeking a solution.

        However.

        Israel+lobby is not going to be satisfied with anything less than total capitulation from Iran. They know full well that the political situation in Iran does not allow for the Iranians to be left emasculated – more the reason to increase the pressure. They know that once Iran has been backed into a corner, they only need to push just far enough to cause Iran to do something rash – or if they fail to react, trigger a false-flag operation that forces the US to jump in with both feet.

        I don’t think that there will be a showdown at the OK Corral. Obama is desperately trying to manage this along till after the elections. Unfortunately that is a long time away. He is not going to be allowed to reconcile with Iran, barring some miracle transpiring on our domestic front. I still believe that there is enough awareness of the Iran situation in the previously dormant US citizenry, that if Obama went to the nation, he could prevail. Unfortunately, he has yet to demonstrate testicular fortitude in his presidency, but I would love to be surprised. He would go from being one of the worst presidents in our history, to being one of the best, overnight.

        On the more optimistic front, I think it is highly unlikely that Obama would bomb Iran, barring an October surprise instigated by a false-flag. If not for the treasonous fifth column prevalent through all our branches of government, I would imaging that the military is on high alert for this, and I would not be surprised if they have communicated this in no uncertain terms to the Israelis.

        Similarly, despite the rhetoric and sabre-rattling from Nutty Yahoo, my perception is that he does not have sufficient support in Israel for launching an attack. He is insane enough that I could be proven wrong in this, but the sense I get is that this is a bridge too far even for him.

        In summary, I believe the talks will be sabotaged so that there is no deal with Iran, however, I do not expect war.

        Obama does need to augment his security detail and not allow it to get compromised as it did in Colombia, unless he wants JFK’s fate. If he can stay alive, and Ron Paul does not get the Republican nomination, then he will get re-elected. The Israelis know that payback is going to be a bitch, and they are not going to sit idly by to let it happen, even if it ends up harming them as well.

        Maybe the Mayans were on to something…

  7. William Burns
    April 15, 2012, 5:51 pm

    England and the UK? I had no idea the breakup of Britain had gone that far.

    • Denis
      April 15, 2012, 6:50 pm

      Shocking. I think the Olympics has finally driven the rest of the UK away. And soon it will be England, Scotland, and the UK and the Queen won’t know who to send to defend the Falklands.

  8. ritzl
    April 15, 2012, 6:07 pm

    Wow. Netanyahu’s initial (more to come) beef is that they have “five” (count ’em) weeks to continue enriching. As Nima Shirazi has pointed out here several times, the “two years hence” argument has been advanced for decades. Now it’s reduced to five weeks. Who, in their right mind, believes this anymore? Heh, don’t answer that…

    Thanks, Annie. Very hopeful.

    • Annie Robbins
      April 15, 2012, 6:14 pm

      thanks ritzl, i am hopeful.

      Nima Shirazi has pointed out here several times, the “two years hence” argument has been advanced for decades

      i think i have embedded a NYT article from ’92 a few times, making this same pt myself too.

  9. ahhiyawa
    April 15, 2012, 6:45 pm

    Fuming? Bibi’s erupting like a volcano with lava spewing out of his eyeballs, ears, nose, mouth and ass. The fools going to learn what close associates of “no drama” Obama have warned; this guy doesn’t get mad, he gets even.

    Sanger and Erlander shot their mouths off peddling zealous Zionist propaganda in they’re 7 April, joint NYT’s article. They’re characterization of the P5+1 group making “hard line,” confrontational demands or else Israel will start bombing as Obama’s teams “opening moves” in Istanbul did not happen.

    What’s stunning to me is the veracity people are willing to place in peddlers of rabid, Zionist hasbura, especially when its spouted from mainstream organs of the US media by the usual suspects.

    • Annie Robbins
      April 15, 2012, 6:53 pm

      y’know, i wasn’t really planning on adding this to the post but what you said (this guy doesn’t get mad, he gets even) just reminded me of a link i just posted in alex’s thread. maybe i will go dig it up.

      here, from march 28th, a couple days before israel announced they were holding off bombing iran til next year: http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/03/28/203718.html

      Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan arrived in Tehran on Wednesday for talks on Iran’s nuclear program amid strained relations between the two countries over the continuing bloodshed in Syria, as Tehran vowed to do everything it could to support Damascus.

      Erdogan will be meeting Iran’s most powerful authority, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, as well as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad during his two-day visit.

      Erdogan held talks about Iran with U.S. President Barack Obama on Sunday in South Korea, raising speculation Turkey was taking a message from Washington to Tehran — although a Turkish official dismissed that.

      While Turkey has repeatedly voiced its support for Iran’s right to establish a peaceful nuclear program……..

      Turkey has offered to host the next round of talks between Iran and the P5+1 group of countries which could take place as early as mid-April but a location has yet to be confirmed.

      for more context and extra links on obama possibly setting up netanyahu read alex’s post and thread here: http://mondoweiss.net/2012/04/democratic-jewish-group-attacks-mark-perry-for-report-on-israeli-access-to-azeri-airspace.html

      • Mayhem
        April 15, 2012, 8:23 pm

        as Tehran vowed to do everything it could to support Damascus.

        Birds of a feather flock together.
        I now understand all this soft peddling at Mondoweiss about Syria, because Iran is their best friend.

      • Shingo
        April 15, 2012, 10:43 pm

        Birds of a feather flock together.

        They sure do Mayhem, and there was no better example than when Netenyahu and Abdullah of Saudi Arabia stood united, shoulder to shoulder, danding that the West join them in support of Mubarak during the Egyptian demonstrations.

        How poignant that Bibbi would share the stage with one vicious and brutal dictator in support of another?

      • Annie Robbins
        April 15, 2012, 10:49 pm

        i soft peddle on syria because i know who’s supporting the opposition, the neocons. the peace thru civil war guys. if they’re in it, i’m not. i know them hella more than i know iran or syria.

      • Shingo
        April 15, 2012, 10:54 pm

        And speaking of birds of a feather Mayhem,

        Any guesses for who was Apartheid South Africa’s best friend during it’s apartheid years?

        LOL.

      • DICKERSON3870
        April 15, 2012, 11:28 pm

        RE: “Birds of a feather flock together.” ~ Mayhem

        GIVE THIS A LISTEN: Scott Horton Interviews Gareth Porter (AUDIO, 19:58), Antiwar .com, 01/19/12
        Gareth Porter, independent historian and journalist for IPS News, discusses the Israeli Mossad’s false flag operation that made the CIA appear responsible for terrorist attacks inside Iran; using Jundullah to assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists to provoke a military response – not set back their nuclear program; how terrorist attacks [creating mayhem] marginalize Iranian political moderates and make diplomatic negotiations with the US impossible; and the predictable nationalistic “blowback” response of Iranian students, who are defiantly switching majors to nuclear science.
        TO LISTEN (AUDIO, 19:58) – http://antiwar.com/radio/2012/01/19/gareth-porter-141/

      • Mayhem
        April 16, 2012, 12:21 am

        So it’s a matter of the ‘better the devil you know than the devil you don’t’
        I think there is a very interesting intersection here despite Shingo’s brouhaha and shortsightedness.
        See http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/for-saudi-arabia-israel-is-turning-from-foe-to-friend-1.424278

      • DICKERSON3870
        April 16, 2012, 12:56 am

        RE: “Birds of a feather flock together.” ~ Mayhem
        AND RE: “Shingo’s…shortsightedness.” ~ Mayhem

        SEE: A lack of vision is making Israel a short-term state, By Gideon Levy, Haaretz, 4/15/12

        . . . Last week I joined the pilgrims to Hebron on Passover eve. In the bus, one of them, using a derogatory term for Arabs, said loudly: “All the Arabushim should be sent to the stone crushers straight from the hospital, as soon as they’re born.” The whole bus roared with laughter. Some passengers muttered at us, a reporter and a photographer, the only secular people on the bus: “Collaborators, there are collaborators on the bus.” Nobody protested, naturally.
        The thousands of pilgrims to Hebron, with their myriads of supporters, belong to another nation, with no connection or resemblance to the nation of Tel Aviv. Every society has an extreme right wing today, but in a small, fragile society like ours, this could become fatal. The United States can afford its dark Christian right and remain a democracy. Israel cannot. Can anyone guarantee that the hostile tone from the fortified bus to Hebron won’t turn into the prevailing tone? Clearly things are heading in that direction and nobody is doing anything to stop it [certainly not Mayhem – J.L.D.]
        Nobody is doing anything to stop democracy from rupturing, nobody is stopping Israel on its way to becoming a pariah, even more than it is already. . .

        SOURCE – http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/a-lack-of-vision-is-making-israel-a-short-term-state-1.424277

      • Shingo
        April 16, 2012, 1:07 am

        I think there is a very interesting intersection here despite Shingo’s brouhaha and shortsightedness.

        Translation: Israel embraces the leadership of one fo the most vile regimes in the world, not to mention the main financiers of Al Qaeda, and poor Mayhem is running around rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

        You have to love how Mayhem criticizes the Syrian’s for putting down what may have been the latest Arab Spring uprising, while his tribe are buddying up with the Saudis who did the same thing in Bahrain.

      • DICKERSON3870
        April 16, 2012, 1:29 am

        RE: “Birds of a feather flock together.” ~ Mayhem

        SEE: “Bibi and the Yo-Yos”, by Uri Avnery, Antiwar.com, 05/26/11:

        (excerpt) It was all rather disgusting.
        There they were, the members of the highest legislative bodies of the world’s only superpower, flying up and down like so many yo-yos, applauding wildly, every few minutes or seconds, the most outrageous lies and distortions of Binyamin Netanyahu.
        It was worse than the Syrian parliament during a speech by Bashar Assad, where anyone not applauding could find himself in prison. Or Stalin’s Supreme Soviet, when showing less than sufficient respect could have meant death.
        What the American Senators and Congressmen feared was a fate worse than death. Anyone remaining seated or not applauding wildly enough could have been caught on camera – and that amounts to political suicide. It was enough for one single congressman to rise and applaud, and all the others had to follow suit. Who would dare not to?
        The sight of these hundreds of parliamentarians jumping up and clapping their hands, again and again and again and again, with the Leader graciously acknowledging with a movement of his hand, was reminiscent of other regimes. Only this time it was not the local dictator who compelled this adulation, but a foreign one.
        The most depressing part of it was that there was not a single lawmaker – Republican or Democrat – who dared to resist. When I was a 9 year old boy in Germany, I dared to leave my right arm hanging by my side when all my schoolmates raised theirs in the Nazi salute and sang Hitler’s anthem. Is there no one in Washington DC who has that simple courage?
        . . .

        ENTIRE COMMENTARY – http://original.antiwar.com/avnery/2011/05/25/bibi-and-the-yo-yos/

      • DICKERSON3870
        April 16, 2012, 1:38 am

        P.S. ALSO WORTHWHILE:
        Weimar Revisited, by Uri Avnery, Antiwar.com, 11/21/11
        LINK – http://original.antiwar.com/avnery/2011/11/20/weimar-revisited/
        Avnery on McCarthyism Israeli-style: “Hi, Joe!”, by Uri Avnery, mwcnews.net, 1/08/11
        LINK – http://mwcnews.net/focus/analysis/7829-mccarthyism-israeli-style.html

      • DICKERSON3870
        April 16, 2012, 3:36 am

        RE: “Birds of a feather flock together.” ~ Mayhem

        SEE – R Lior: No Place for Disrupters of Jewish Rule, Arutz Sheva, Apr 15 2012

        (except) Addressing the fifth annual Ramle Conference on the Problem of Foreign Workers and the Phenomenon of Infiltrators into Israel, R Dov Lior of Kiryat Arba’ said Sunday:

        The entry of immigrants from African states is a sophisticated move to get terrorists into Israel under the guise of family reunification and all sorts of these types of pronouncements. These are things which could hurt the security of the state of Israel. We have a divine commandment to return to Israel. There are positive commandments to inherit the land, to settle it and to establish Jewish rule. Those who disrupt this should not be among us. . .

        SOURCE – http://niqnaq.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/i-want-to-make-it-absolutely-clear-that-according-to-my-analysis-lior-and-ginsburgh-are-wreckers-of-the-state/

      • Mayhem
        April 16, 2012, 5:48 am

        You have to love how Mayhem criticizes the Syrian’s for putting down what may have been the latest Arab Spring uprising

        @Shingo: That is a complete rubbish – I said nothing of the sort.

        while his tribe are buddying up with the Saudis

        If Shingo can read past his own myopic view of the world he will see that the article from Haaretz shows how Saudi Arabia is courting Israel; it said NOTHING about Israel’s responses to these questionable overtures.
        Saudi Arabia’s human rights abuses aside for a second, the main issue here is resolving the I/P conflict and the Saudis back in 2002 did put forward a realistic peace proposal. Naturally an initiative that has the endorsement of the Arab states has some possibilities. Even though Netanyahu has not supported it; Peres has.
        @Dickerson3870: Your turgid tangentialism continues; don’t you know how to stick to a discussion topic?

      • dahoit
        April 16, 2012, 11:24 am

        Shouldn’t that be neoLIBcons?It’s a bipartisan effort.
        As Romney and Obomba are two sides of a oneheaded coin,what’s the diff?In fact,I’d rather Republicans acting like Repubs than Democrats like Obomba in office anyway,maybe then we’ll have some vocal opposition to their neolibcon policies,as under the shrub.
        A total disaster,this gumbie POTUS.And he threw US all under the bus with his expansion of the drone campaign,when I terminated(I imagine he saw that movie,it’s modern cultural touchstone,with the bad guys plain as day))my support.

      • Annie Robbins
        April 16, 2012, 2:28 pm

        So it’s a matter of the ‘better the devil you know than the devil you don’t’

        nope, it’s a matter of worse the devil we know.

      • Mooser
        April 17, 2012, 1:53 pm

        “@Dickerson3870: Your turgid tangentialism continues; don’t you know how to stick to a discussion topic?”

        Gosh, what would Phil and Adam do without you to run the website, Mayhem.
        Wait a minute. Do you not know what “mayhem” means in English? Or is “mayhem” what you are threatening the enemies of the Jewish State with?

      • Philip Weiss
        April 17, 2012, 2:44 pm

        i think it comes from an insurance ad

  10. Daniel Rich
    April 15, 2012, 7:47 pm

    I was taught not to sell hides before I’d actually nailed and skinned a bear…

  11. sciri21
    April 15, 2012, 8:40 pm

    I’m hopeful yet skeptical that these meetings will accomplish anything. It remains to be seen if the Obama admin. is willing to make any concessions. Plus, AIPAC will swing into full force to try to scuttle any deal that is reached, and Congressional sanctions may already have accomplished that.

    • Kathleen
      April 16, 2012, 9:53 am

      Israel and the I lobby here in the states and around the world want Iran to give up their legal right to enrich uranium all together and that is not going to happen. I think we are going to hear some out loud request/demands that Israel sign the NPT and open up their doors to inspections. Last President to demand this was Kennedy

      • hophmi
        April 16, 2012, 10:09 am

        “Israel and the I lobby here in the states and around the world want Iran to give up their legal right to enrich uranium all together and that is not going to happen.”

        No one said that. We want Iran to stop violating the NPT, which they signed.

        “I think we are going to hear some out loud request/demands that Israel sign the NPT and open up their doors to inspections. ”

        Sure you are. And it still won’t happen, because there is no law requiring Israel (or India or Pakistan, which none of you seem to care about even though they are potentially much greater threats to use nukes than anyone in the Middle East) to sign the NPT.

      • Shingo
        April 16, 2012, 12:47 pm

        No one said that.

        Really? Seriioysly Hop, you’re delusial at the best of times, but you really are taking it to a whole new level on this thread.
        http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israel-told-u-s-iran-must-halt-enrichment-ahead-of-nuclear-talks-sources-say-1.415970

        The PM of Israel ‏ @IsraeliPM

        Iran must stop all enrichment of uranium, both 20% and 3% and move all enriched material out of its territory 1/2
        http://twitter.com/#!/IsraeliPM/statuses/189235895591907328

        We want Iran to stop violating the NPT, which they signed.

        When did Iran start violating the NPT Hop and what are they doing that violated the NPT?

        And it still won’t happen, because there is no law requiring Israel (or India or Pakistan, which none of you seem to care about even though they are potentially much greater threats to use nukes than anyone in the Middle East) to sign the NPT.

        There is no law that prevents Iran from withdrawing from the NPT and making nukes either.

  12. DICKERSON3870
    April 15, 2012, 8:58 pm

    RE: “Next on the agenda are the talks with the same parties in Baghdad, late May. We can all breathe a sigh of relief just a little bit longer.” ~ Annie

    MY COMMENT: I certainly wouldn’t breathe a sigh of relief just yet. It would not surprise me to see yet another Iranian nuclear scientist assassinated or some other type of terrorist attack [at the behest of, and/or paid for by you know who(m)] on Iran just before May meeting in an effort at to “throw a monkey wrench into the works” and create a less positive atmosphere. It has certainly happened before!

    Anyway, I feel melancholia of Rachmaninoff proportions coming on.

    Melancholia, 2011, R, 135 minutes
    This inventive drama charts the disintegrating relationship between newly married twentysomething Justine and her melancholy sister, Claire, just as Earth hurtles toward certain collision with a newly discovered planet.
    Cast: Kirsten Dunst, Charlotte Gainsbourg, Alexander Skarsgård, Kiefer Sutherland, Brady Corbet, Cameron Spurr, Charlotte Rampling, Jesper Christensen, John Hurt, Stellan Skarsgård, Udo Kier
    Director: Lars von Trier
    Netflix Availability: Streaming, DVD and Blu-ray
    Netflix Listing – http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Melancholia/70184165
    ‘Melancholia’ Trailer HD (VIDEO, 02:15) – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_1X37SJcn4

    • DICKERSON3870
      April 15, 2012, 9:39 pm

      P.S. SOME MAYHEM: Lars von Trier makes vow of silence after Cannes furore, by Catherine Shoard, The Guardian, 10/05/11

      The film-maker Lars von Trier has issued a statement saying that he will no longer give any more statements or interviews.
      Von Trier, whose career has long mixed controversy and cinematic excellence, explained in a brief press release that
      his decision followed an interrogation by police investigating whether his remarks at the Cannes film festival earlier this year, in which he appeared to sympathise with Adolf Hitler, contravened French legislation.
      Through the publicists for his latest film, Melancholia, the director said he had been questioned on Wednesday by police in the Danish district of North Zealand “in connection with charges made by the prosecution of Grasse in France from August 2011 regarding a possible violation of prohibition in French law against justification of war crimes … Due to these serious accusations I have realised that I do not possess the skills to express myself unequivocally and I have therefore decided from this day forth to refrain from all public statements and interviews.”
      The fallout from von Trier’s declaration that he could “understand” the Nazi leader is now in its fifth month. The remarks were made in response to a question about his German heritage after the first press screening of Melancholia. Festival officials condemned his remarks, prompting von Trier to backtrack over his comments. But the festival nonetheless declared him “persona non grata”, and barred him from future festivals, to a mixed response from delegates.
      The director apologised twice for any offence caused, but a fortnight ago appeared to retract some of his expressions of remorse, and said earlier apologies were forced and untrue to his feelings. He told GQ magazine: “It’s not true. I’m not sorry. I am not sorry for what I said. I’m sorry that it didn’t come out more clearly. I’m not sorry that I made a joke. But I’m sorry that I didn’t make it clear that it was a joke.”. . .

      SOURCE – http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/oct/05/lars-von-trier-cannes

      FROM WIKIPEDIA [Lars von Trier]:

      • Controversy at 2011 Cannes Film Festival
      On 19 May 2011, Cannes Film Festival’s board of directors declared von Trier persona non grata for comments he made during a press conference for his film Melancholia the day before, an unprecedented move for the film festival.[46][47] Responding to a question by The Times film critic Kate Muir about his German roots and his comments in a Danish film magazine about the Nazi aesthetic, von Trier claimed to have some sympathy for and understanding of Adolf Hitler,[48] and then jokingly claimed to be a Nazi himself:[49][50]

      What can I say? I understand Hitler, but I think he did some wrong things, yes, absolutely. … He’s not what you would call a good guy, but I understand much about him, and I sympathize with him a little bit. But come on, I’m not for the Second World War, and I’m not against Jews. … I am of course very much for Jews, no not too much, because Israel is pain in the ass, but still how can I get out of this sentence. … — Press Conference for Melancholia, Cannes, 2011[51][52]

      Referring to the art of Nazi architect Albert Speer, von Trier added:

      … he had some talent that was kind of possible for him to use during… Ok, I’m a Nazi.

      Then, to Toronto Star film critic Peter Howell, who questioned whether Melancholia could be an answer to Hollywood blockbusters and asked von Trier if he could “envison doing a film on a grander scale than this”, von Trier replied:

      On a grander scale? Yeah. Yeah that’s what we Nazis, we have a tendency to do things on a greater scale. Yeah, maybe you could persuade me into the final solution with journalists. …

      SOURCE – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lars_von_Trier

      NOTE: Lars von Trier stated in the director’s commentary to the film Dancer in the Dark (2000): “Basically, I’m afraid of everything in life except filmmaking.” – J.L.D.

      ALSO SEE: Lars von Trier’s Melancholia takes top prize at European film awards – http://mondoweiss.net/2012/04/p5-1-iran-nuclear-talks-went-swimmingly-netanyahu-is-fuming.html/comment-page-1#comment-442904

      • dahoit
        April 16, 2012, 11:53 am

        Speer;It’s like saying that Hitler was not a bad painter,despite years and years of propaganda that he was a terrible artist.The art attributed to him may not have been Renoirish,but it sure a hell of a lot better than paint splashes on canvass,which today,to some idiots, are worth millions.

    • DICKERSON3870
      April 15, 2012, 10:15 pm

      P.P.S. RE: “melancholia of Rachmaninoff proportions” ~ me, above

      FROM WIKIPEDIA [Sergei Rachmaninoff]:

      (except) Sergei Vasilievich Rachmaninoff (Russian: Серге́й Васи́льевич Рахма́нинов)[1] (Russian pronunciation: [sʲɪrˈɡʲej rɐxˈmanʲɪnəf]; 1 April 1873 – 28 March 1943) was a Russian[2] composer, pianist, and conductor. . .

      . . . After the poor reception of his First Symphony, Rachmaninoff fell into a period of deep depression that lasted three years, during which he wrote almost nothing. . .</b.

      SOURCE – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Rachmaninoff

      P.P.P.S. Of course, the music used in Melancholia is by Richard Wagner (Tristan und Isolde), not Rachmaninoff. I guess Lars von Trier thought Wagner had more of a “tendency to do things on a greater [grander] scale.” I am not aware of Wagner’s ever having suffered from melancholia/depression.
      Go figure!

      • piotr
        April 16, 2012, 12:27 am

        People who did not figure out that Lars von Trier was joking belong to two classes:

        morons totally without sense of humor

        professionals at “we was offended” trade

      • lysias
        April 16, 2012, 2:43 pm

        Tristan und Isolde is all about salvation (of a kind) through death.

      • DICKERSON3870
        April 17, 2012, 2:36 am

        RE: “Tristan und Isolde is all about salvation (of a kind) through death.” ~ lysias

        REPLY: Thanks, I guess that explains it!

        FROM WIKIPEDIA [Tristan und Isolde]:

        • Influence of Schopenhauer on Tristan und Isolde
        Wagner’s friend Georg Herwegh introduced him in late 1854 to the work of the philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer.[21] The composer was immediately struck by the philosophical ideas to be found in “Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung” (The World as Will and Representation), and the similarities between the two men’s world-views became clear.[22]
        Man, according to Schopenhauer, is driven by continued, unachievable desires, and the gulf between our desires and the possibility of achieving them leads to misery while the world is a representation of an unknowable reality. Our representation of the world (which is false) is Phenomenon, while the unknowable reality is Noumenon: concepts originally posited by Kant. Schopenhauer’s influence on Tristan und Isolde is most evident in the second and third acts. The second act, in which the lovers meet, and the third act, during which Tristan longs for release from the passions that torment him, have often proved puzzling to opera-goers unfamiliar with Schopenhauer’s work.
        Wagner uses the metaphor of day and night in the second act to designate the realms inhabited by Tristan and Isolde.[23] The world of Day is one in which the lovers are bound by the dictates of King Marke’s court and in which the lovers must smother their mutual love and pretend as if they do not care for each other: it is a realm of falsehood and unreality. Under the dictates of the realm of Day, Tristan was forced to remove Isolde from Ireland and to marry her to his Uncle Marke—actions against Tristan’s secret desires. The realm of Night, in contrast, is the representation of intrinsic reality, in which the lovers can be together and their desires can be openly expressed and reach fulfilment: it is the realm of oneness, truth and reality and can only be achieved fully upon the deaths of the lovers. The realm of Night, therefore, becomes also the realm of death: the only world in which Tristan and Isolde can be as one forever, and it is this realm that Tristan speaks of at the end of Act Two (“Dem Land das Tristan meint, der Sonne Licht nicht scheint”).[24] In Act Three, Tristan rages against the daylight and frequently cries out for release from his desires (Sehnen). In this way, Wagner implicitly equates the realm of Day with Schopenhauer’s concept of Phenomenon and the realm of Night with Schopenhauer’s concept of Noumenon.[25] . . .

        SOURCE – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tristan_und_Isolde

        P.S. And of course, Rachmaninoff himself sometimes did things on a pretty grand (demanding) scale.
        Shine (1996) – http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117631/
        Shine OST “The Rach. 3” (VIDEO, 04:19) – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSXFoFvCEho
        VLADIMIR HOROWITZ, MASTER OF RACH 3 OPUS 30 (VIDEO, 43:58) – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lusMu2LGIUM

    • Annie Robbins
      April 15, 2012, 10:23 pm

      dickerson, i was expecting the IS/US demand iran completely abandon the fordo plant to be the official US criteria for this conference and iran already said no to that. so in that regard it is a win. only a win in terms of a conference mind you, but it’s not glaring headlines of iran’s refusal and a cementing. it’s obviously not smooth sailing, it’s just 5 weeks where the neocon screams can be easily countered and an escalation of threats is not a forgone conclusion.

      • DICKERSON3870
        April 15, 2012, 10:49 pm

        Yes Annie, I understood what you meant. I too was relieved (and almost in shock) that it was not “glaring headlines of iran’s refusal and a cementing”. But I couldn’t pass up the opportunity to mention Israel’s history of supporting terrorism*! Aren’t I absolutely wicked?!?! But at least there’s a method to my mayhem.

        *COME TO MENTION IT: Scott Horton Interviews Gareth Porter (AUDIO, 19:58), Antiwar .com, 01/19/12
        Gareth Porter, independent historian and journalist for IPS News, discusses the Israeli Mossad’s false flag operation that made the CIA appear responsible for terrorist attacks inside Iran; using Jundullah to assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists to provoke a military response – not set back their nuclear program; how terrorist attacks marginalize Iranian political moderates and make diplomatic negotiations with the US impossible; and the predictable nationalistic “blowback” response of Iranian students, who are defiantly switching majors to nuclear science.
        TO LISTEN (AUDIO, 19:58) – http://antiwar.com/radio/2012/01/19/gareth-porter-141/

      • DICKERSON3870
        April 17, 2012, 5:49 am

        P.S. ALSO SEE: US, Israel Challenged on Iran, by Ray McGovern, Antiwar.com, 5/20/10

        (excerpts). . . Many Washington insiders were shocked last Oct. 1 [2009] when Tehran agreed to send 2,640 pounds (then as much as 75 percent of Iran’s total) of low-enriched uranium abroad to be turned into fuel for a small reactor that does medical research.
        Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, gave Tehran’s agreement “in principle,” at a meeting in Geneva of representatives of members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany, chaired by Javier Solana of the European Union.
        Even the New York Times acknowledged that this, “if it happens, would represent a major accomplishment for the West, reducing Iran’s ability to make a nuclear weapon quickly, and buying more time for negotiations to bear fruit.” . . .
        . . . Then, on Oct. 18, a terrorist group called Jundullah, acting on amazingly accurate intelligence, detonated a car bomb at a meeting of top Iranian Revolutionary Guards commanders and tribal leaders in the province of Sistan-Baluchistan in southeastern Iran. A car full of Guards was also attacked.
        A brigadier general who was deputy commander of the Revolutionary Guards ground forces, the Revolutionary Guards brigadier commanding the border area of Sistan-Baluchistan, and three other brigade commanders were killed in the attack; dozens of other military officers and civilians were left dead or wounded.
        Jundullah took credit for the bombings, which followed years of lethal attacks on Revolutionary Guards and Iranian policemen, including an attempted ambush of President Ahmadinejad’s motorcade in 2005.
        Tehran claims Jundullah is supported by the U.S., Great Britain and Israel, and retired CIA Middle East operations officer Robert Baer has fingered Jundullah as one of the “good terrorist” groups benefiting from American help.
        I believe it to be no coincidence that the Oct. 18 attack — the bloodiest in Iran since the 1980-88 war with Iraq — came one day before nuclear talks were to resume at the IAEA in Vienna to follow up on the Oct. 1 breakthrough. The killings were sure to raise Iran’s suspicions about U.S. sincerity.
        It’s a safe bet that the Revolutionary Guards went directly to their patron, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, arguing that the bombing and roadside attack proved that the West cannot be trusted. . .

        ENTIRE ARTICLE – http://original.antiwar.com/mcgovern/2010/05/19/us-israel-challenged-on-iran/

      • ahhiyawa
        April 16, 2012, 8:20 am

        Annie

        There is no reason not to feel confident regarding a satisfactory conclusion to the P5+1/Iranian negotiations.

        Regardless of how minimal the US media defines the outcomes of this first meeting, the fact is Iran has won big by US and western acquiescence to the fact of uranium enrichment on some yet to be determined basis. And that ongoing discussions regarding Iran’s nuclear program will be framed within the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, a demand the Iranians have made from day one.

        Therefor, Netanyahu’s charge of “freebie” is not far from the mark, because the P5+1 negotiation posture is the fat lady singing the death knell in toto to Israeli demands of zero Iranian enrichment, shutting down impregnable facilities under mountains and submission to an inspections regime no other NPT country has to endure. Our maladjusted cub scout in Tel Aviv is not a happy camper.

        Though there have been missed opportunities these past 3 years by both Iran and the US, the fact such attempts have occurred and are re-igniting again today is because of the national security interests of Iran and the US. The post WWII global order is dead and a new paradigm is arising upon the ashes of its funeral pyre, which is the driver forcing dialog and compromise on the issues that divides Iran and the US.

        This was clear to me by the end of 2004. That the much abused notion of “tipping point” for the US wasn’t 9-11 or Afghanistan, but the insanity of 19 March 2003 and the massive, negative knock-on effects beyond defeat affecting US hegemony, limits of power, domestic fiscal constraints and global influence & leverage in an array of fields from diplomacy to economics.

        What Netanyahu and fellow travelers are learning, bitterly, is that there are fateful consequences for Israel due to that “special relationship” between the US and Israel. That there’s more than kisses and affectations of eternal love in Obama’s embraces, as you too presciently foresee.

      • Annie Robbins
        April 16, 2012, 2:31 pm

        thanks ahhiyawa , really good comment.

      • Kathleen
        April 16, 2012, 9:55 am

        The I lobby and Israel’s scream is give up all uranium enrichment. Not going to happen. So Israel leave themselves plenty of room to pre-emptively attack. But I think the word is out if they do there are going to be some serious repercussions

  13. Daniel Rich
    April 15, 2012, 9:25 pm

    Hi Annie,

    I don’t have the guts to ‘monkey’ around with you, Annie. I think CloakandDagger and I are on the same page with our feelings of concern/s [although I can’t and won’t take the liberty to speak for or on behalf of CaD] with regard to future time frames and Israel’s proven track-record of sabotaging any progress made, that she considers to be at her disadvantage [like real peace].

    • Annie Robbins
      April 15, 2012, 10:08 pm

      i just didn’t know what you meant daniel. sometimes a comment lands at the bottom because people forgot to hit reply, but otherwise they are directed at the main post. i will go check out C&D’s posts and see if that gives me any clue wrt your meaning. it never occurred to me before you’d think it required guts to explain yourself but i guess i learned something new about you today.

      • Daniel Rich
        April 16, 2012, 1:27 am

        Hi Annie,

        Sorry for all the confusion.

        It looks like me being funny is as ‘funny’ as hitting your very own funny bone… not at all.

        What I tried to imply is that before selling fur coats you first need to kill and skin your designated animal. That’s how I see this current process. Five weeks means nothing in the sense that so many things can happen [as they’ve done in the past], that I’d rather wait or those five weeks to pass before I start waving victory flags. Overall I’m an optimistic guy, but with the ME/IP canard, I’ve learned to be realistic as well.

      • Annie Robbins
        April 16, 2012, 4:02 am

        hey, wrt your soh i think we could use more of it around here. not a problem. i get your pt about the victory flags. i guess i sounded a little too upbeat.

    • Kathleen
      April 16, 2012, 9:56 am

      Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett as well as other experts have said that the I lobby here in the states and Israel have sabotaged US negotiations with Iran for decades

  14. Boulos
    April 15, 2012, 9:39 pm

    is the irony that Netanyahu is complaining about Iran engaging in bad faith negotiations in order to buy more time, kick the can down the road, stall, etc., lost on anyone? Is this the pot calling the kettle black?

    • DICKERSON3870
      April 15, 2012, 10:28 pm

      RE: “is the irony that Netanyahu is complaining about Iran engaging in bad faith negotiations in order to buy more time, kick the can down the road, stall, etc., lost on anyone? Is this the pot calling the kettle black?” ~ Boulos

      FROM WIKIPEDIA [Psychological projection]:

      (excerpt) Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others originate those feelings.[1]. . .

      SOURCE – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

      • LanceThruster
        April 16, 2012, 12:11 pm

        What my pal Bernie the Attorney referred to as “The 180 Rule” i.e. accusing the other side of crimes you yourself commit. Straight outta “Mein Kampf.”

      • DICKERSON3870
        April 17, 2012, 1:46 am

        RE: “The 180 Rule” – Bernie the Attorney

        MY COMMENT: I like it!
        I sometimes refer to it as the “back at ya” technique. Like Flash Gordon whipping out a mirror and reflecting the death ray back at the creature firing the ray gun.

      • Mooser
        April 17, 2012, 2:04 pm
    • Annie Robbins
      April 15, 2012, 10:36 pm

      boulos, i think front and center on netanyahu’s priority right now is expanding israel, the growth of the settlements and more ethnic cleansing the land of palestinians, as always. the second priority is serving the first and the immediate front burner for that is not iran, it is holding the white house/the elections. short unflexible window. that will be the priority for the israel lobby. iran is merely the tool for that at this juncture. if they can place romney in the WH he would be like bush, potentially hundreds of thousands of new settlers over an 8 year period and bomb iran. so i think of this as electioneering and i think obama took a swat at netanyahu.

      • AllenBee
        April 15, 2012, 11:41 pm

        Annie Robbins, it is stunning to line up Netanyahu’s writing over the years — since about 1979 — and observe how Iran has been in his crosshairs since the very beginning. Iran is the dynamo that keeps energizer Bibi going; he really has a hard on to destroy that nation. Recall the bookends of his speech at AIPAC last month — he started out declaring, “Jerusalem belongs to the Jewish people,” and ended up talking about Esther and how she took Persia for Jews.
        Bibi thinks he has Jerusalem and Palestine under under his control — you’re probably right on that score: he will expand and gradually overrun West Bank; and right again, that Romney in office would assist in the ongoing ethnocide of Palestinians.

        But destroying Iran is not just the rhetoric of distraction for Bibi; no one can harbor the hatred of Iran that he has harbored for 34 years and not take him seriously. I don’t think “Iran is merely the tool” for cornering then eliminating Obama; in addition to his visceral hatred of Iran, there are economic, cultural, technological, and geostrategic elements at stake. On top of all that, Bibi needs to accomplish some Big Thing to equal the mythical status of his dead brother. Sadly, this is not just electioneering.

      • Annie Robbins
        April 16, 2012, 12:10 am

        ok, i also disagree with this: ““Iran is merely the tool” for cornering then eliminating Obama”

        let me try that again. when i say “at this juncture” i mean the window i referenced as short unflexible window between now and november. iran is slung around constantly in the news and by the candidates, that’s no coincidence.

        i agree with you iran is vital to him but i think consolidating and fortifying israel as the regional hegemony is his overall priority. taking down iran is part of that. it is a sustained enduring campaign. yet, i still believe the immediate front burner “at this juncture” is a firm grip on the presidency of the US. he wants a puppet in the white house. he will use iran to bring him down. the iran sanctions is a loose loose for the US and obama/horrid economy or war and china wins either way so it’s an election trap.

        re regime change in the US: (Blumenthal: Netanyahu seeks regime change in US and Iran). http://mondoweiss.net/2012/02/blumenthal-netanyahu-seeks-regime-change-in-us-and-iran.html

        this shot for the WH won’t be around after the first of the year, like iran. the easiest way to get iran is via US elections. iran is merely the tool for that at this juncture. and for his own political capital re israel elections.

      • ahhiyawa
        April 16, 2012, 8:56 am

        >>>…this shot for the WH won’t be around after the first of the year, like iran. the easiest way to get iran is via US elections. iran is merely the tool for that at this juncture. and for his own political capital re israel elections.”<<<

        Ditto to that.

        Obama is well aware of these Machiavellian maneuverings by Netanyahu, his Republican allies and Zionist front groups in the US.

        As Obama has adroitly managed and unified the global community, P5+1 group and the sanctions regime regarding the Iranian nuclear program, an accomplishment similar to 'herding cats,' he no doubt is laying his snares and traps for Republicans in the general election and their allies should the Iranians say "yes."

      • dahoit
        April 16, 2012, 12:06 pm

        Curious;Do you think Romney would have the chutzpah to charge a drunk used car salesman of potentially murdering Israelis and Americans in a flight of neolibcon fantasy that should have brought his administration down in an age of former reason disposed by our media watchdogs?
        How about the alleged murder of OBL,the alleged perp,with no evidence but MSM and government collusion of alleged complicity,and ignoring every protocol of civilized behavior,and in fact a hit to hush him up,if one looks at our track record,but the MSM doesn’t care a whit,as they are in on the con.
        At least with Romney,we know he’s an empty suit,this guy Obomba,is an empty suit portrayed as knowledge inc.

  15. hophmi
    April 15, 2012, 10:11 pm

    Yes, and in 1938, everyone thought Adolf Hitler would be satisfied with the Sudetenland. I don’t say this to compare Iran to Nazi Germany. But let’s just say diplomats have been wrong before, particularly those from free countries negotiating with those from authoritarian countries.

    No one I know wants a war with Iran. And of course, in your massive naivete, you say not one word on the role sanctions may have played in changing Iran’s position.

    • Shingo
      April 15, 2012, 11:06 pm

      Yes, and in 1938, everyone thought Adolf Hitler would be satisfied with the Sudetenland.

      You have to love how these one trick ponies always pull the Hitler card when the facts aren’t on their side.

      But let’s just say diplomats have been wrong before, particularly those from free countries negotiating with those from authoritarian countries.

      They have been wrong for 3 decades of accusations about Iran making nukes yes. They were also wrogn about Iraq.

      And of course, in your massive naivete, you say not one word on the role sanctions may have played in changing Iran’s position.

      That’s because they haven’t. This reflects Iran’s position even before the santions were imposed. Before the Fordo facility was declared, Iran requested feorm the IAEA that the internationa community supply it’s TNR reactor with 20% enriched fuel. They didn’t even intend to enrich to 20% until the West said no, and forced Iran to produce it.

      • hophmi
        April 15, 2012, 11:36 pm

        “You have to love how these one trick ponies always pull the Hitler card when the facts aren’t on their side.”

        Clearly, saying that I was not making a Nazi comparison was not sufficient explanation for your tiny mind. Diplomacy on the Iranian nuclear issue has been going on for years. The Iranian do use diplomacy as a stalling tactic, and sticking your head in the sand is not going to make that less true.

        “They have been wrong for 3 decades of accusations about Iran making nukes yes. They were also wrogn about Iraq.”

        So Iran is not making nukes? That’s your position?

        “That’s because they haven’t. This reflects Iran’s position even before the santions were imposed.”

        LOL. OK. It’s just a coincidence that before sanctions, diplomats were frustrated, and now that they have been imposed and additional sanctions threatened, Iran is suddenly interested in talking. OK, Shingo, I’m sure you have some PressTV to watch.

      • Shingo
        April 16, 2012, 1:22 am

        Clearly, saying that I was not making a Nazi comparison was not sufficient explanation for your tiny mind.

        Agreed Hophmi. Merely raising the subject of necrophelia and you in the same sentence should be perfectly acceptable, provided I make sure to qualify that I am not alleging you partake in such practices.

        Diplomacy on the Iranian nuclear issue has been going on for years. The Iranian do use diplomacy as a stalling tactic, and sticking your head in the sand is not going to make that less true.

        Stalling tactic for what Hophmi? What has Iran been doing while using diplomacy to buy time? Surely, with all that stalling, Iran must have produced something nefarious, which at least one of the 16 US intelligence angecies or Mossad would have sniffed out.

        So what is it?

        So Iran is not making nukes? That’s your position?

        Mine and that of every US intelligence agency and Mossad.

        What’s your position and what evidence is it based on?

        It’s just a coincidence that before sanctions, diplomats were frustrated, and now that they have been imposed and additional sanctions threatened, Iran is suddenly interested in talking.

        You are one very cofnused and ignorant puppy Hop. In 2003, the Iranians made a grand bargain offer to Washington, whic included normalizing relations and putting their entire nuclear program on the table.

        Washington rebuffed the offer.

        In 2003 – 2005, under the Paris agreement, Iran stopped enrichment completely and agreed to the additional protocols while the E3 were supposed to come up with a proposal. The E3 missed the deadline and was given a 6 month extension. After missing the second deadline, Iran pulled out and re-commenced enrichment.

        At no stage since 2003 has Iran been in violation of the NPT. At no stage since 2003, have inspectors been denied access to Iran’s nuclear facilities. At no stage since 2003 has any evidence of a nuclear wepoans program been produced.

        You simply don’t have a clue what you are talking about.

        OK, Shingo, I’m sure you have some PressTV to watch.

        And you have all that huge backlog of MAD comics to catch up on because it’s p[retty obvious that facts and evidence are of no interest to you.

      • Daniel Rich
        April 16, 2012, 2:17 am

        @ Shingo,

        Thank you, you saved me a lot of time [getting all the facts out and debunking goose-stepping fallacies]. Appreciated.

      • Mayhem
        April 16, 2012, 6:04 am

        At no stage since 2003, have inspectors been denied access to Iran’s nuclear facilities.

        @Shingo: After your daily dose of PressTV read http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/22/un-inspectors-iran-nuclear-mission-fails-as-tehran-denies-access-to-key-site.html to see how recently Iran denied U.N inspectors access to the Parchin military test site.
        One Shingoism after another; I suspect nobody believes anything you say any more.

      • Shingo
        April 16, 2012, 7:55 am

        After your daily dose of PressTV read link to thedailybeast.com to see how recently Iran denied U.N inspectors access to the Parchin military test site.

        Mayhem, you never turn down an opportunity to wear egg on your face face do you?

        1. Parchin is not a nuclear facility, so the IAEA has no business askign to inspect the site.
        2. The allegations the IAEA is making (fed to it by the Israelis) is based on pre 2003 accusation. As it turns out, the Iranians allowed the IAEA to inspect Parchin TWICE in 2005. As Oli Heonone (who was head of the IAEA Safeguards Section at the time) reported, there was nothing there. So to sum up, the IAEA actually has no legitimate reason to visit Parching on any grounds.
        3. Gareth Porter revealed that Iran did not deny the IAEA access to Parchin, but agreed to allow the IAEA inspectors to visit the site if the IAEA agreed to put the issue of Parchin to rest once it had inspected the place. Sounds reasonable, but the Washingon puppet, Yuki Amano, refused to accept those terms and ordered his team to return home without further discussion.
        http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=29901

        Please promise to stick around Mayhem. We need wingnuts like you for comic relief.

      • ahhiyawa
        April 16, 2012, 9:26 am

        Come June the sanctions regime will begin to crumble like a house of cards. The US has already given exemptions to China, Japan and India. And India is already saying enough and ingeniously violating the sanctions they agreed to. Europeans won’t be long in demanding exemptions too, and when that happens that game is done.

        The US and Iran both know this, but its more important to the US as a foil against the domestic and foreign opposition as proof of steadfastness and resolve in the face of Iranian intransigence. The immediate and important quid pro quo for Iran is US acceptance of Iranian rights under the NPT.

        The question now isn’t whether Iran should or should not have a nuclear program and engage in enrichment. Iran won that argument. The dialog and negotiations are now all about the parameters of that understanding among the participants. And the Iranians have already retracted their opposition to working groups, by flagging:

        “…”The two sides’ experts should prepare a road map for clarifying what steps should be taken before next month’s nuclear meeting in Baghdad, and already enabling the start of the trust-making process,” Salehi said.

        Salehi refrained to give any details on what should be included in the road map but said it could make the negotiations in Baghdad easier and faster.”

        When states meet publicly as the P5+1 and Iran did recently, these are not venues to solve problems. These are fundamentally ceremonies to formalize and accept protocols or agreements already hammered out and arrived at in committees working in private.

        I’d like to be a fly on Bibi’s walls.

      • Mayhem
        April 16, 2012, 9:41 am

        @Shingo: You conveniently glossed over the following remark from the article from the Daily Beast.
        “Agency inspectors had visited Parchin in 2005 and found nothing suspect. But the IAEA has new information about a containment vessel built at the site for explosions tests. It wants to check if explosions, done without nuclear material, could have been used to learn such things as how to make the trigger that sets off atomic bombs.”
        How do you know that Parchin is not involved in the Iranian nuclear program? If the Iranians had nothing to hide why would they object to UN inspectors visiting Parchin?
        You claim that Iran did not deny the IAEA access to Parchin, but agreed to allow the IAEA inspectors to visit the site if the IAEA agreed to put the issue of Parchin to rest once it had inspected the place. How can any investigatory body accept that kind of a deal? You suggest it sounds reasonable – I would suggest that to somebody with a more discerning frame of mind that might sound very suspicious.
        If you still need convincing go back to 2010 when there was another case of inspectors having been denied access to a series of facilities, refer http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/01/world/middleeast/01nuke.html?_r=1
        Or maybe you would like to mention the fatwa against nuclear weapons that means that Iran is forbidden to use them. Of course you are happy to believe whatever the Iranians say – if they are anti-Zionist they must be the good guys.

      • Shingo
        April 16, 2012, 12:43 pm

        The thing that makes debating this topic with your hsbrats so laborious, is that people like you and Hop are so painfully ignorant of the topic, not to mention insufferably hypocritical.

        How do you know that Parchin is not involved in the Iranian nuclear program? If the Iranians had nothing to hide why would they object to UN inspectors visiting Parchin?

        Because:

        1. The IAEA has no evidence that Parchin is a nuclear facility. Under the NPT, the IAEA has no authority to even ask up inspect a facility unless it has been declared to be one.

        2. Parchin is a military installation and the Iranians have every reason to prevent anyone from visiting the place.

        If you have nothing to hide, why not install a camera in your shower and hook it up to the Internet Mayhem?

        How can any investigatory body accept that kind of a deal? You suggest it sounds reasonable – I would suggest that to somebody with a more discerning frame of mind that might sound very suspicious.

        It’s actually pretty basic logic. If the police have a warrant to search your property, they have to:

        1. have a reason
        2. only do it once unless they come up with another reason to convince a judge that they need to again

        If you still need convincing go back to 2010 when there was another case of inspectors having been denied access to a series of facilities, refer link to nytimes.com

        Broad and Sanger, the Judy Miller’s of the Iran nuke debate, have been caugth lying in this topic repeatedly, and when they are not lying, they are trying to implicate Iran by innuendo. Note how the report says the inspectors have been denied access to “a series of facilities” but not “nuclear faclities”? Under the NPT, Iran has the right to deny entrey to facilities that are not nuclear sites.

        Or maybe you would like to mention the fatwa against nuclear weapons that means that Iran is forbidden to use them.

        Not particulalry. I am not internested in what Iranians say but it does debunk the myth that Iran claims to want nukes and wants to use them against Israel.

      • Annie Robbins
        April 16, 2012, 2:49 pm

        These are fundamentally ceremonies to formalize and accept protocols or agreements already hammered out and arrived at in committees working in private.

        yes, i agree. from the first link:

        Perhaps most important to the Iranians may have been the agreement that the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) is the framework to ensure that Iran’s nuclear programs are peaceful.

        The NPT, Ashton said, will form “a key basis for what must be serious engagement, to ensure all the obligations under the NPT are met by Iran while fully respecting Iran’s right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy.”

        this is a win for Iran.

        on the topic of the sanctions India’s foreign minister (or one of their relevant ministers) stated the india recognizes international sanctions, not sanctions issued solely by states. they’ve also vigorously courted iran trade recently and is investing heavily in an iranian port (can’t recall the name) . and china is not supportive of the sanctions. the press here rarely talks about china, but they are central in all this, imho.

      • AllenBee
        April 16, 2012, 3:25 pm

        now you’ve gone to far, Shingo; watch what you say about my man Alfred E Neuman.

    • Sumud
      April 16, 2012, 2:58 am

      In 1966 everyone thought Israel would be satisfied with the 50% of Palestine (as designated in UN181) which they had occupied since 1948/49. I don’t say this to compare Israel to Nazi Germany. But let’s just say diplomats have been wrong before, particularly those from free countries negotiating with zionists.

      What on *earth* was your point in mentioning Nazi Germany hophmi? Disclaimer aside, it reads like a clumsy attempt to work Iran and Nazi Germany into the same sentence.

      • Mayhem
        April 16, 2012, 6:20 am

        @sumud: Was Israel supposed to calmly give back all the territory it won in the aftermath of the 1967 war because it might have been satisfied with that arrangement in 1966 before it was attacked on all sides?
        Wars don’t work that way.

      • Sumud
        April 16, 2012, 8:01 am

        Wars don’t work that way.

        Indeed they don’t:

        1. It has long been part of international law that territory cannot be won by war – offensive OR defensive..
        2. Israel launched an offensive attack on Egypt on June 5, 1967. Israel was not attacked.
        3. It has long been known that Israel always knew there was no threat of an attack from Egypt or any other surrounding country. See quoted text below.

        Mayhem – your hasbara 101 is easily disproved.

        [my emphasis]
        Yitzhak Rabin, who served as the Chief of the General Staff for Israel during the war stated: “I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it.” Menachem Begin also stated that “The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.“[73] Former Chief of Staff of the armed forces, Haim Bar-Lev (a deputy chief during the war) stated: “the entrance of the Egyptians into Sinai was not a casus belli,” but argued instead that the Egyptian blockade of the Straits of Tiran ultimately caused the war. Major General Mattityahu Peled, the Chief of Logistics for the Armed Forces during the war, said the survival argument was “a bluff which was born and developed only after the war… When we spoke of the war in the General Staff, we talked of the political ramifications if we didn’t go to war —what would happen to Israel in the next 25 years. Never of survival today.”[74] Peled also stated that “To pretend that the Egyptian forces massed on our frontiers were in a position to threaten the existence of Israel constitutes an insult not only to the intelligence of anyone capable of analyzing this sort of situation, but above all an insult to Zahal (Israeli military).”
        Origins of the Six-Day War / Removal of U.N. peacekeepers from Egypt

        – – – – –

        I see the important information quoted above has been moved from the main page on the Six Day War wiki entry where it used to reside. The zionist ‘war on ideas’ continues. Can’t have those pesky facts getting in the way can they?

      • Shingo
        April 16, 2012, 8:34 am

        Was Israel supposed to calmly give back all the territory it won in the aftermath of the 1967 war because it might have been satisfied with that arrangement in 1966 before it was attacked on all sides?

        Yes, and it even agreed to it under UNSC242.

        And FYI.

        1. It was not attacked, Israle attacked Egypt
        2. It was not attacked on all sides

      • eljay
        April 16, 2012, 8:40 am

        >> Was Israel supposed to calmly give back all the territory it won in the aftermath of the 1967 war … ?

        Yes.

      • Mayhem
        April 16, 2012, 10:36 am

        @Sumud: the situation was not one of whether Israel acted defensively or offensively. Israel was compelled to carry out a pre-emptive strike or face serious danger to its safety and security following serious provocations.
        Both Syria and Jordan were involved, so I don’t fathom the refuting of my assertion that Israel faced attacks from all sides.
        UN resolution 242 was supposed to guarantee Israel “secure and recognized boundaries” but that has never happened so any other obligations under 242 are null and void.
        Israel has attempted to negotiate land for peace with the Sinai and Gaza, but the disingenuousness of the Arab side makes that a very risky policy flaunt with danger.

      • Shingo
        April 16, 2012, 6:56 pm

        the situation was not one of whether Israel acted defensively or offensively.

        Yes, let’s not get into the details of who started it and why.

        Israel was compelled to carry out a pre-emptive strike or face serious danger to its safety and security following serious provocations.

        Rubbish. Israel was not compelled at all. They had so much time on their ands that Meir Amit, the head of Mossad travelled to Washinton to discuss Israel’s plans to attack Egypt with MacNamara. NacNamara said there was no evidence Nasser would attack and even if he did, Israel would easily prevail. He ECM predicted the war would be over in 5 days.

        Amit said Israel agreed with his assessment.

        Both Syria and Jordan were involved, so I don’t fathom the refuting of my assertion that Israel faced attacks from all sides.

        Your assertion is bunk. You can’t even bring yourself to say Israel attackd Syria because you know Israel attacked Syria.

        UN resolution 242 was supposed to guarantee Israel “secure and recognized boundaries” but that has never happened so any other obligations under 242 are null and void.

        I always love how Zionists think that they can determine a law or resolution is null and void jus because it suits them.

        The preamble declared that Israel had to withdraw from the territories it seized in 1967. As Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban revealed at the time, he understood full well that Resolution 242 calls for Israel’s complete withdrawal: “The words ‘in the recent conflict’ convert the principle of eliminating occupation into a mathematically precise formula for restoring the June 4 Map.” During negotiations to determine Resolution 242’s wording, Abba Eban failed in an attempt to delete the phrase “in the recent conflict.” (Comment by Foreign Minister of Israel and Telegram 3164, UK Mission in New York to Foreign Office, 12 Nov 1967). Moshe Dayan also realized that Resolution 242 calls for full withdrawal and urged the government to reject it. During a closed session of the Labor Party, he counseled against endorsing Resolution 242 as “it means withdrawal to the 4 June [1967] boundaries, and because we are in conflict with the SC [Security Council] on that resolution.” (Daniel Dishon (ed.), Middle East Record, v. 4, 1968, Jerusalem: 1973)

        The Mitchell report repeatedly noted that resolution 242 requires Israel to first withdraw its armed forces from the territory it occupied in 1967 before the Palestinians can be asked to terminate all states of belligerency. It also stressed the illegality of Israel’s unilateral annexation of Jerusalem and its settlement policy. Those have been imposed by the threat or use of force. See the findings under the heading “Fourth Geneva Convention” on pdf page 65.http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/EN/reports/ACF319.pdf

        As Caradon said, secure borders are recognized borders and Isrsel’s borders were recognized in 1948.

      • eljay
        April 16, 2012, 7:54 pm

        >> Israel was compelled to carry out a pre-emptive strike or face serious danger to its safety and security following serious provocations.
        Both Syria and Jordan were involved, so I don’t fathom the refuting of my assertion that Israel faced attacks from all sides.

        The similarities to the existential situation Iran is facing are startling! It’s good to know you won’t begrudge Iran a pre-emptive strike in order to protect its safety and security against attacks from all sides (Israel and the U.S.).

        Or…is this another one of those situations where, hypocritically, only “we” are allowed to feel threatened and to launch pre-emptive self-defence attacks?

      • lysias
        April 17, 2012, 11:46 am

        And Prime Minister Levi Eshkol didn’t want to attack. The attack happened because there had been a soft coup (pressure from the generals) that forced Eshkol admit to his government ministers who then compelled him to go to war.

        So much for the war being one of necessity.

      • hophmi
        April 16, 2012, 7:47 am

        “What on *earth* was your point in mentioning Nazi Germany hophmi? Disclaimer aside, it reads like a clumsy attempt to work Iran and Nazi Germany into the same sentence.”

        I didn’t mention Nazi Germany. I mentioned Hitler. It’s simply the most famous example of diplomats trumpeting an agreement with a totalitarian leader that went awry. I simply included the disclaimer to make clear that I was not trying to make a Nazi comparison. Not trying to make a Nazi comparison. Get it? NOT TRYING TO MAKE A NAZI COMPARISON.

        Frankly, North Korea is not a bad example either. I’m all for diplomacy; I’m on record opposing any attack on Iran. But that doesn’t mean I’m going to get excited every time there seems to be a diplomatic breakthrough.

      • Shingo
        April 16, 2012, 8:02 am

        I didn’t mention Nazi Germany. I mentioned Hitler.

        Oh that’s OK then. You didn’t mention Nazi Germany, you simpy invojed the name of the worst Nazi of them all. So you;’re not trying to make a Nazi comparion, you’re tryign to make a Hitler comparison.

        GOT IT!!

        And I didn’t mean to refe to you as a necropheliac, just Charles Manson.

        You still haven’t explained why you don’t accept the findings of 16 US intelligence agencies and the Mossad, that Iran has not yet made the descision to even produce nukes.

      • Sumud
        April 16, 2012, 8:20 am

        I didn’t mention Nazi Germany. I mentioned Hitler.

        Oh dear. This is a direct quote:

        “Yes, and in 1938, everyone thought Adolf Hitler would be satisfied with the Sudetenland. I don’t say this to compare Iran to Nazi Germany.”

      • eljay
        April 16, 2012, 8:46 am

        >> Yes, and in 1938, everyone thought Adolf Hitler would be satisfied with the Sudetenland. I don’t say this to compare Iran to Nazi Germany. But let’s just say diplomats have been wrong before, particularly those from free countries negotiating with those from authoritarian countries.
        >> I didn’t mention Nazi Germany. I mentioned Hitler. It’s simply the most famous example of diplomats trumpeting an agreement with a totalitarian leader that went awry. I simply included the disclaimer to make clear that I was not trying to make a Nazi comparison. Not trying to make a Nazi comparison. Get it? NOT TRYING TO MAKE A NAZI COMPARISON.

        Seems pretty clear to me.

        >> I’m all for diplomacy; I’m on record opposing any attack on Iran. But that doesn’t mean I’m going to get excited every time there seems to be a diplomatic breakthrough.

        Makes sense.

        >> And of course, in your massive naivete, you say not one word on the role sanctions may have played in changing Iran’s position.

        You make a good case, then, for imposing sanctions on Israel.

      • hophmi
        April 16, 2012, 10:05 am

        Dude, what the hell is your problem? I made clear what the context of my comparison was. It’s a diplomatic example from history. Get over it.

      • hophmi
        April 16, 2012, 10:07 am

        “You make a good case, then, for imposing sanctions on Israel.”

        There is no reason to sanction Israel. Israel is not in violation of any treaty by having nukes. It is not illegal not to sign the NPT.

      • eljay
        April 16, 2012, 10:26 am

        >> There is no reason to sanction Israel. Israel is not in violation of any treaty by having nukes. It is not illegal not to sign the NPT.

        A lame attempt at deflection. I didn’t say Israel should be sanctioned because of nukes or its unwillingness to sign the NPT. Contrary to your doe-eyed assertion, the expansionist, colonialist, religion-supremacist state of Greater Israel does have behaviour that needs changing, and if sanctions are working with Iran (your point), then they could work with Israel, too (my point).

      • AllenBee
        April 16, 2012, 11:23 am

        It is illegal, however, for an occupying power to plant civilian settlers on the occupied territory. Israel knows this — has known it since Sept 14 – 1967 when eminent Israeli jurist Theodor Meron submitted the requested Opinion on legality of settlements to Israel’s leadership.

        Israel’s reactions to Meron’s Judgment have been:
        1. it was buried in Israeli army files, where Gershom Gorenberg found it after 20+ years of FOIs and diligent searches;

        2. Israel concocted deceptions to work around the Judgment — Israeli military units were settled in occupied territory, creating the subterfuge that the settlement was military and not civilian.

        3. From Benj. Netanyahu’s pov, Israel makes its own laws; the laws that apply to the rest of the international community do not apply to Israel. Based on the ideology passed on from his grandfather, Rabbi Meliekovsky, to Bibi’s father, Benzion, and deeply incorporated in Bibi’s own world view, Jews have an irrefutable entitlement to all of the land of biblical Palestine that was stolen from them by Rome, and neither the infelicitous outcome of a foolish rebellion waged and lost 2000 years ago, nor subsequent law or treaty has any authority over this three-generations deep ideological carbuncular claim.

        [curious, tho, that hophmi is so exercised that Germans made the same claim to their own territory. ah well, consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.]

      • Shingo
        April 16, 2012, 12:22 pm

        There is no reason to sanction Israel. Israel is not in violation of any treaty by having nukes. It is not illegal not to sign the NPT.

        But it is for Israel to deman Iran give up it’s civilian nuclear program and it is for Israel to bomb Iran, or even to threaten to bomb Iran.

      • AllenBee
        April 16, 2012, 12:28 pm

        actually hophmi your history is inaccurate.

        Herbert Hoover’s “secret history” of WWII and its aftermath, Freedom Betrayed, was published recently by the Hoover Institution.

        Gunter Grass lit a candle to enlighten the world as to worry that Israel poses to the world today. As scholars and think tankers examine Hoover’s on-the-scenes/behind the scenes account of what really took place between FDR, Churchill, and British and European powers, a lot of narratives will perforce be revised. The world will be a better place for exposing truths long buried, dealing with them forthrightly, and moving forward in a more honest fashion.

        You might want to take a look at what Hoover saw and knew in 1938, hophmi; get a jump on the rest of the world that will sooner or later come to know a revised version of that history.

        or you could organize a book burning/book banning event.

      • Shingo
        April 16, 2012, 12:50 pm

        Dude, what the hell is your problem? I made clear what the context of my comparison was.

        Fair enogh Hophmi.

        BTW. Have you stopped beating your wife?

      • hophmi
        April 16, 2012, 1:29 pm

        “actually hophmi your history is inaccurate.”

        Which part?

        “Herbert Hoover’s “secret history” of WWII and its aftermath, Freedom Betrayed, was published recently by the Hoover Institution. ”

        So? What’s your point? Herbert Hoover was not in government in 1938. In 1938, he said: “”I do not believe a widespread war is at all probable in the near future. There is a general realization everywhere … that civilization as we know it cannot survive another great war.”

        I’d say he was probably wrong about that.

      • Chaos4700
        April 17, 2012, 12:17 am

        Keep channeling Dick Cheney, hophmi. He makes a nice patron saint for you. “So what?”

    • dahoit
      April 16, 2012, 12:15 pm

      How do you know that Hitler would have stopped his aggression after regaining historical German lands stolen after WW1?
      War was declared by the Allies you know,and once declared,what would Hitler have done,give them up?And let millions of potential terrorists(Jews,his avowed enemy,he wrote a book about it,)disrupt his rear areas,ala the French underground?Remember the Nissei?Why did that liberal paragon,FDR,enact a similar policy?And they the Nissei,weren’t even the target of a books anger,a book took to heart by a majority of the German people,I believe.
      And I never read it,as I’m not a follower who needs others to do my thinking for me,I’m a genius in my own mind,but ask my wife,she might differ,sigh.

      • hophmi
        April 16, 2012, 1:26 pm

        “How do you know that Hitler would have stopped his aggression after regaining historical German lands stolen after WW1?”

        He didn’t. That’s the point. Had the rest of the world gotten its act together in 1938, it might have save a lot of lives.

      • Chaos4700
        April 17, 2012, 12:14 am

        And done what, exactly? Slaughtered the Germans while they were still destitute and starving? I keep forgetting that only Jewish lives matter to people like you.

    • Chaos4700
      April 17, 2012, 12:13 am

      …And then Hitler moved on the West Bank! And the Golan! Oh, but credit where credit is due, at least the Nazis returned the Sinai to Egypt, right?

      Oh wait. Am I not Jewish enough to cite Nazis on this blog like hophmi without getting my post blocked?

  16. dbroncos
    April 15, 2012, 10:52 pm

    Big news. This has to reflect a change in strategy on Obama’s part, otherwise his reps would have coughed up yet another deal breaker complaint against Iran. 11 years of war must be weighing on his conscience. He must also feel he’ll have enough popular support to weather the inevitable shouts of “appeasement!” from Israel’s supporters.

    • Shingo
      April 16, 2012, 3:23 am

      This has to reflect a change in strategy on Obama’s part, otherwise his reps would have coughed up yet another deal breaker complaint against Iran

      I wish I shared your enthusiasm, but Obama has demonstrated time and time again that he will either back down or do something utterly stupid.

  17. Kathleen
    April 15, 2012, 10:58 pm

    Another great post Annie. Great discussion over at Race for Iran all day. To think that the NYT’s and other MSM outlets were not able (yet) to undermine these talks even though they tried. Always painting Iran in an “evil” light. Netanyahu will do what he can to destroy and positive out come.
    Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett as well as others have done everything in their power to encourage negotiations based on facts
    http://www.raceforiran.com/iran-chinas-rise-and-american-strategy#comments

  18. dbroncos
    April 15, 2012, 11:49 pm

    “… I don’t say this to compare Iran to Nazi Germany.”

    No, of couse not, hophmi. That goes without saying – no need to explain.

  19. piotr
    April 16, 2012, 12:54 am

    I am agnostic about the prospect of an agreement, because there are vested interests in continuing sanctions.

    However, there were signs of genuine panic in “most unlikely circles” about the prospect of Israel attacking Iran. When you have Harper of Canada lecturing Netanyahu that a war with Iran is VERY undesirable, and PM of Australia too, and Avigdor Lieberman voicing an opposition to war right after returning from China, you can see that Netanyahu and Barak tried to bite more than they can chew.

    Israeli hawks have scant idea about dynamics in Eurasia. Iran can be “isolated” only with the concurent agreement of China and Russia that can connect with Iran through Central Asia. There is also Pakistan to consider, Pakistan seems to be thoroughly disenchanted with USA, about killing of scores of their soldiers by US drones and support of Jundallah: no one can detest Baluchi separatists more than Pakistan.

    So for many reasons EU and USA had to at least pretend to be constructive, and so did Iran — Iran must have some allies, and both Russia and China exercise some pressure to be “reasonable”. But their notion of reasonable is not the same as our neo-cons’ and whoever floated this “dismantle Fordow” idea. Actually, the angry reaction of “the regime in al-Quds” was quite valuable to many parties in this round of talks.

  20. upsidedownism
    April 16, 2012, 4:53 am

    The threat of an impending war with Iran is a ruse. Netanyahu wants Palestine. All of it. Talk about Iran just takes the focus off everyday Israeli practices of ethnic cleansing.

  21. NickJOCW
    April 16, 2012, 8:14 am

    US support for all things Israeli could be becoming somewhat overstretched by this Iran business. Aside from the US population voters, the same groups in Europe are seriously unenthusiastic about the effect all this is having on fuel prices. Here in Spain electricity has just gone up by 7% and gas (the kind you use for heating) by 3.3%. Few spend much time disentangling Euro austerity measures from the embargo on Iranian oil imports, so you have a potential for even more destabilising demonstrations that are likely to mean Europeans would refuse to get involved militarily in any conflict with Iran, which could be embarrassing for Obama. From yet another angle, the US/NATO retreat from Afghanistan, which grows daily more urgent, could benefit from some rapport with Iran. No army has ever retreated over those mountains without catastrophic losses. Here is what de Spiegel wrote about it recently: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,825407,00.html. My suggestion is that there is developing a powerful nisus towards some US accommodation with Iran that has nothing whatever to do with Israel.

    • ahhiyawa
      April 16, 2012, 9:38 am

      There are many factors driving US/Iranian “accommodation,” and Israel is one among many pressing geo-political and US domestic issues driving it. Proponents of course won’t be bantering this from the roof tops and providing op-eds on it.

    • dahoit
      April 16, 2012, 12:21 pm

      As we flew over the mountains on the way in,and I’m sure we have enough C whatevers to evacuate them in a hurry,a repeat of 19th century disasters is unlikely,but our puppets will pay a heavy price,unless they’ve already punched their tickets to Malibu,or Waikiki.

  22. Theo
    April 16, 2012, 9:49 am

    Annie

    I have noticed you have been attacked about your “soft peddling the Syrian issue”.

    This weekend I had the pleasure to attend a party to welcome home a journalist coming back from Syria. We had a long discussion on the matter and according to him “the free syrian army” is greatly made up of different international mercenaries, fighting for a paycheck. He personally talked to persons from four different countries.
    Once written, his story will sound different as the newspaper will not print anything contrary to the official edict that those are syrian patriots. So much for the freedom of press.

    • Mayhem
      April 16, 2012, 8:28 pm

      @Theo: are these “international mercenaries” meant to be so idealistic that they are prepared to put their lives on the line for nothing?

      • Chaos4700
        April 17, 2012, 12:15 am

        Of course not! They’re promised state subsidized housing in the West Bank! Oh wait, wrong mercenaries, my mistake.

      • Theo
        April 17, 2012, 7:54 am

        Mayhem

        You did not get my point!
        Again, those fighting in Syria are not all local patriots who want to change the regime, as we are sold by all major media, but in great numbers paid mercenaries from outside of Syria.
        Who pays them? Watch your taxes working.
        Who gave them the weapons? It is up to your guess.

        There were times when men fought for a cause, as in the spanish civil war, the french resistance and the soviet partisans, just to name a few. They fought and died not for money, but because they believed in something good.

      • piotr
        April 18, 2012, 1:13 am

        Theo, admit, some of those alleged mercenaries are simply fanatics. Sure, even fanatics need to eat a piece of pita now and then, and they need explosives and ammo, but as Ronald Reagan put it, they are moral equivalents of our Founding Fathers.

        Roughly the same guys raise mayhem in Iraq.

  23. Chaos4700
    April 17, 2012, 12:20 am

    Do you suppose hophmi has found those nukes in Iraq yet? Or has he stopped looking?

Leave a Reply