Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on June 15, 2015
Iran is playing the world for suckers
The dovish case for negotiating with Iran on its nuclear program always was an “if-then” proposition.
If Iran was prepared to give up its military nuclear program in exchange for inducements, then wouldn’t that be great?
The answer, of course, is that it would be. But is Iran really prepared to do that?
Iran hawks answered in the negative, and argued that any negotiations would merely allow Iran to buy time to expand its nuclear activities even further.
Given that it really would be really great if the “if” was true, there was a very strong case, for a very long time, for giving Iran the benefit of the doubt. But now the jury is pretty much out. And we have to get real: Iran is playing us for fools.
The report last week by The New York Times that Iran kept growing its nuclear stockpile throughout the negotiations, despite White House assurances to the contrary, was the last nail in the coffin.
Iran has been caught red-handed lying, cheating, and double-talking throughout this process. It is still developing missiles designed to carry nuclear warheads, according to the Pentagon. It is reportedly still working with North Korea on military nuclear technology.
In other words, everything we know suggests Iran is still on its nuclear trip, despite its promises and despite the ongoing negotiations.
Iran has every reason and incentive to pursue the bomb. After Libya gave up its WMDs, its government was overrun by President Obama’s 2011 intervention, signaling that no country in the region is truly safe without them. Combine that with the Iranian regime’s longstanding project of national greatness and its apocalyptic anti-Semitism, and you can see why Iran would make an audacious bet that Israel and the U.S. will not attack if it continues to develop nuclear weapons.
That is the story that matches up with the facts. The other story — Iran is willing to give up its nuclear ambitions — no longer does.
Yes, yes, it would be absolutely great if we could work out a win-win deal whereby Iran gives up the nukes, becomes a good global citizen, and rejoins the community of nations. Nobody disputes that.
There is a point, however, where optimism shades into wishful thinking, and wishful thinking into self-delusion.
The only reasonable interpretation of recent events is that Iran is fully determined to get a nuclear weapon at whatever costs, and is only using negotiations with the West as a delaying tactic in its rush for the bomb. That nobody thinks this is a good idea isn’t a reason for denying the facts.
The fact is that Iran is playing us for suckers. So let’s stop being suckered.
19 Comments on "Iran is playing the world for suckers"
paulo1 on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 7:33 am
The title should have read:
IRAN IS PLAYING OBAMA FOR A SUCKER
Beat you to it, Planter. On this we do agree.
GregT on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 8:17 am
The title should have read, “The Globalist Central Bankers are Playing the Entire World for Suckers”
And so far they have been getting away with it.
Steve O on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 12:33 pm
Follow the link and read some of Mr Gorby’s other opinions. Like “Why the GOP 2016 race needs Lindsey Graham” or “Dear GOP: Hillary Clinton is trolling you on voting rights. Don’t take the bait!”. Then decide how seriously you want to take this editorial.
Apneaman on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 12:42 pm
“Iran has been caught red-handed lying, cheating, and double-talking throughout this process.”
That is completely unacceptable…that is Americas job. Watching the US on the world stage is like watching an aging rich bully jock who is not being taken seriously anymore throwing temper tantrums. Go ahead war pigs, invade them.
Jimmy on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 12:53 pm
Actually Israel is the one playing the world for suckers
Apneaman on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 1:52 pm
There is No Such Thing as a Civil War
“It is self evident that neocons and war lovers do not read. You think I exaggerate? The entire Vietnam War was fought by presidents and secretaries and commanders who thought Vietnam was a client of Communist China. Any single book on the subject would have revealed to them that the two countries were and are thousand-year, bitter adversaries. BTW, those leaders of the free world also believed, fervently, that air power would carry the day. The B-52s bombed North Vietnam down to sea level and still lost the war.
So let’s do the same thing all over again and see if the results are different. Let’s just bomb ISIS until it quits. Failing that — and that is failing as we speak — we’ll train more Iraqis to stand up so we can sit down, or however that saying goes. We’ll bomb the Houthi rebels in Yemen — along with Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, oh, and ISIS in Yemen — until they all give up. It will be easy, and they’ll greet us as liberators.”
http://www.dailyimpact.net/2015/06/16/there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-civil-war/
Apneaman on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 1:58 pm
Iran: A Nuclear Program, a Monkey in Space, No Water
http://www.dailyimpact.net/2014/01/31/iran-a-nuclear-program-a-monkey-in-space-no-water/
Speculawyer on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 2:14 pm
OK . . . so what is the best thing to do?
1) Start another gulf war with a country that is twice the size of Iraq.
2) Do nothing such that they can just go on building a bomb in privacy if that is what they want to do.
3) Do a deal that is not perfect but allows for invasive inspections so we can make sure they are not building a bomb?
Option (3) seems like the best one to me. I’m tired of people the bitch & moan but provide no better solution.s
Nony on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 2:17 pm
Either option 2 or 3 work for me.
Apneaman on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 2:20 pm
Nuke Russia?
The warlords of Washington haven’t ruled it out
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2015/06/14/nuke-russia/
Apneaman on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 2:24 pm
8 striking parallels between the U.S. and the Roman Empire
Is our republic coming to an unceremonious end? History may not be on America’s side
http://www.salon.com/2012/12/26/8_striking_parallels_between_the_u_s_and_the_roman_empire/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow
GregT on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 2:31 pm
Spec,
What exactly do you believe that Iran would do with A nuclear bomb?
Apneaman on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 2:57 pm
They would not do anything with it Greg, because they are not suicidal. That self destructive stupidity seems to be reserved for dieing empires. Military misadventures – the ruin of many desperate empires. Let’s read a review of Americas most recent ones shall we.
/////////////////////////////////////////////
Tomgram: Engelhardt, A Record of Unparalleled Failure
“So here are five straightforward lessons — none acceptable in what passes for discussion and debate in this country — that could be drawn from that last half century of every kind of American warfare:
1. No matter how you define American-style war or its goals, it doesn’t work. Ever.
2. No matter how you pose the problems of our world, it doesn’t solve them. Never.
3. No matter how often you cite the use of military force to “stabilize” or “protect” or “liberate” countries or regions, it is a destabilizing force.
4. No matter how regularly you praise the American way of war and its “warriors,” the U.S. military is incapable of winning its wars.
5. No matter how often American presidents claim that the U.S. military is “the finest fighting force in history,” the evidence is in: it isn’t.”
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175854/tomgram%3A_engelhardt,_a_record_of_unparalleled_failure/
GregT on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 3:10 pm
“They would not do anything with it Greg, because they are not suicidal.”
Of course they wouldn’t Apnea. The Iranians have absolutely nothing to gain from developing a Nuclear weapon, other than, perhaps, a tool for negotiations. I’m sure the globalists could give a damn, even about that.
This is about further Middle East destabilization. That, and control over the Iranian central banking system. Nothing more.
Speculawyer on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 3:17 pm
I don’t think they would do anything with a bomb. And the fact that Pakistan bombs is more troubling to me than Iran. At least Iran has had a relatively stable quasi-elected government for the last 35 years. The Shia are also a bit more progressive than the Shia.
GregT on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 3:29 pm
Iran getting a nuke is a distraction for the masses Spec. Iran will be taken out as soon as Assad has been ousted or assassinated, and the Syrian destabilization has been completed.
Newfie on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 4:11 pm
“They would not do anything with it, because they are not suicidal.”
I would not bet the farm on it. Iran is Shiite. The Shia doctrine embraces suicide as a tool for political purposes. And the word assassin derives from a Shia sect in medieval Persia. Where religion over-rides reason, anything is possible.
GregT on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 5:08 pm
Shia Islam does not “embrace suicide as a tool for political purposes”. According to their beliefs, people who intentionally commit suicide will go straight to hell.
http://www.revivingalislam.com/2012/01/suicide-in-shia-islam.html
Speculawyer on Wed, 17th Jun 2015 2:37 pm
Newfie . . . your name suits you.
The 19 hijackers of 9/11 . . . Sunni.
Al-Qeada . . . Sunni.
ISIS . . . Sunni.
And you are worried about the Shia? There are certainly many nutty Shia out there. But to say “Shia doctrine embraces suicide as a tool for political purposes” is to show a fundamental ignorance of the matter. Every faith (and non faith) can have suicidal attackers. And the Shia certainly have had some during terrible times (the ‘human waves’ of people sent to run across mind-fields during the Iran-Iraq war stand out).