Iran ripe for regime change two years after nuclear deal

[Babak]

The Iran nuclear agreement — officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — has been in effect for a year and a half, during which time the world has been able to assess the impact of its formal implementation. But it has now had two full years to consider the effects of its negotiation, which concluded on July 14, 2015.

The negotiations themselves were promoted by then-U.S. President Barack Obama and his surrogates as a means of creating a new diplomatic status quo between Iran and the West. It was hoped that following the 2013 election of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, Tehran would moderate its behavior by demonstrating cooperation with former adversaries.

But internal moderation of the Iranian regime has proven elusive, and Tehran has shown no aptitude to reform from within.

The result? Western powers have learned the same lesson from the Rouhani administration that they learned from Mohammad Khatami, Ali Akbar Rafsanjani, and other Iranian officials similarly labeled as reformers worthy of outreach. Moderation is a mirage Tehran uses to seduce their prey.

Executions have skyrocketed under Rouhani's watch, with his administration overseeing an alarming 3,000 hangings during its first four-year term. Analysts expect the human rights violations to continue as the president commences a second term next month.

Rouhani's tenure is also distinguished by a dangerous continuation of ballistic missile research, development and testing (including evidence of cooperation with North Korea) and a repressive crackdown by the country’s security forces on activists, artists, academics, journalists and anyone accused of having ties to the West. These unfortunate trends have shown no signs of abatement on the second anniversary of the landmark agreement that granted far-reaching concessions in return for constructive engagement.

Neither has Tehran’s regional behavior demonstrated signs of improvement with the regime serving as a driving force behind sectarian conflict and an active participant in the Syrian and Yemeni civil wars.

As Western powers commemorate the two-year anniversary of the nuclear negotiations, a comprehensive Iran policy that addresses the joint plan’s shortcomings is needed. The U.S. must take the lead — as it did when nuclear negotiations began — but this time it must lead the world in confronting Iran over the nature of its repressive, fundamentalist regime by building a global coalition that supports regime change from within.

To its credit, the Trump administration has taken steps in this direction by increasing sanctions on the country’s ballistic missile program and pursuing the blacklisting of Iran’s hardline paramilitary organization, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. But the Trump administration's willingness to confront Tehran would benefit from clear, overarching policy that more fully embraces the regime’s collapse and replacement.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s strong statement before the House Foreign Affairs Committee was a first step in this direction: “Our policy towards Iran is to push back on (its regional) hegemony, contain their ability to develop, obviously, nuclear weapons and to work towards support of those elements inside of Iran that would lead to a peaceful transition of that government.”

Now Tillerson's rhetoric needs to be backed with clear statements by U.S. officials — including the President himself — that the false narrative of internal moderation has expired and the aspirations of the Iranian people for regime change are within reach.

It is widely believed that the sanctions and diplomatic pressure employed by the White House and Congress are intended to serve the goal of regime change. If so, this needs to be made clear so that interested parties can coordinate their strategies and address questions about the availability of the “elements inside of Iran” that Tillerson referred to.

The regime’s lobby in Washington would have U.S. officials believe no such elements exist, at least none with adequate organization and resources to oust the clerical regime and replace it with a democratic system of government. Such mischaracterizations are as inaccurate as they are well funded.

The accusations were addressed earlier this month when Tehran’s parliament in exile, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, along with the main Iranian opposition movement, the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran, held its annual international gathering for democratic change in Paris. The gathering included tens of thousands of Iranian expatriates and hundreds of politicians and foreign policy experts from around the world who embraced regime change by the Iranian resistance.

In her speech at the event, NCRI President Maryam Rajavi praised the international community for rejecting the failed strategy of “appeasement” that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action represents and affirmed her movement’s commitment to the replacement of Iran's religious dictatorship, characterizing it as an absolute imperative and “the ultimate solution to the crises in the region.”

Rajavi noted what Iran scholars have long known: 1) Tehran’s vulnerability, domestic unpopularity and international isolation puts its overthrow within reach; 2) this can be achieved by the organized, democratic resistance that exists in the country and is led on the world stage by the NCRI.

The White House can mark the second anniversary of the negotiations that resulted in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action by turning the page on the failed Obama policy of capitulation in the interest of concessions and supporting the aspirations of the Iranian people for democratic change. By working with the Iranian opposition to realize regime change in Tehran, U.S. officials send a signal that they are preparing for the regime’s collapse and democratic transition and put Iran on notice that a new Iran policy has been embraced.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/iran-ripe-regime-change-years-nuclear-deal-article-1.3326932

[Babak]

Want some thoughts from N1019

[N1019]

This is exactly the trajectory I predicted for Iran following the JCPOA. If you look at the NYT and some other major media outlets, they have played a similar game, initially talking up the deal and talking about why it was so great and shouting down its naysayers. But it was all part of a theatrical display that the US decided it had to play to get to war with Iran. Now, we are seeing the folks at NYT et al, predictably, changing their tune. My God, just look at it.

The JCPOA was always part of the path to war. It was never intended to prevent war. It was intended to make it look like the US really didn't want war, and to be used against Iran in setting the scene for a war that was planned years ago.

The basic plan was laid out by the Brookings Institution in 2009 in the publicly accessible paper Which Path to Persia? and has been echoed by a number of other observers whose works mostly got very little public attention, but are there for those who care to look.

The public has also been fooled by a great deal of propaganda suggesting that Iran is a bridge too far for the Anglo-American empire, because it is too big and strong, because Russia and China would save Iran etc. It's all bullshit.

America can't just come out and destroy a country. It needs to have an excuse - no matter how weak - for doing so, to minimimize international opprobrium (Brookings Institution 2009) and generate a suitable pretext, lest it face consequences for breaking international law. The JCPOA was intended to keep people off the scent, and it worked very well.

It seems the Rajavi NCRI/MEK crowd will be a major part of what happens next, and there are already reports that the CIA is active inside Iran with various ethno-sectarian groups. Combine the above with the rhetoric coming from the Trump Administration, John Bolton etc and it's not looking good.

[Babak]

This is exactly the trajectory I predicted for Iran following the JCPOA. If you look at the NYT and some other major media outlets, they have played a similar game, initially talking up the deal and talking about why it was so great and shouting down its naysayers. But it was all part of a theatrical display that the US decided it had to play to get to war with Iran. Now, we are seeing the folks at NYT et al, predictably, changing their tune. My God, just look at it.

The JCPOA was always part of the path to war. It was never intended to prevent war. It was intended to make it look like the US really didn't want war, and to be used against Iran in setting the scene for a war that was planned years ago.

The basic plan was laid out by the Brookings Institution in 2009 in the publicly accessible paper Which Path to Persia? and has been echoed by a number of other observers whose works mostly got very little public attention, but are there for those who care to look.

The public has also been fooled by a great deal of propaganda suggesting that Iran is a bridge too far for the Anglo-American empire, because it is too big and strong, because Russia and China would save Iran etc. It's all bullshit.

America can't just come out and destroy a country. It needs to have an excuse - no matter how weak - for doing so, to minimimize international opprobrium (Brookings Institution 2009) and generate a suitable pretext, lest it face consequences for breaking international law. The JCPOA was intended to keep people off the scent, and it worked very well.

It seems the Rajavi NCRI/MEK crowd will be a major part of what happens next, and there are already reports that the CIA is active inside Iran with various ethno-sectarian groups. Combine the above with the rhetoric coming from the Trump Administration, John Bolton etc and it's not looking good.

Now im convinced that this will be a bloody mess. Probably going to look a lot worse

[N1019]

Now im convinced that this will be a bloody mess. Probably going to look a lot worse

Yes, I'm sorry to say I can't see it ending any other way. At least when they had a monarchy, the British seemed to be able to swap shahs without causing much death and destruction. What we're looking at now is far worse.

[AphroditeWorshiper]

I don't understand nothing about politics

but I just hope the return of the Persian Empire

[Babak]

I don't understand nothing about politics

but I just hope the return of the Persian Empire


Extremely unlikely lol.

[AphroditeWorshiper]

[/B]

Extremely unlikely lol.

do you support?

[Norka]

Return Zoroastrianism and kick my retarded cousins out

[Babak]

Return Zoroastrianism and kick my retarded cousins out

what cousins lol

[Drawing-slim]

No chance. Iran will be untouched.

[N1019]

No chance. Iran will be untouched.

In your dreams.

[Babak]

No chance. Iran will be untouched.

it already backfired https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/17/war-with-iran-possible-donald-trump-foreign-policy

[Drawing-slim]

In your dreams.
I agree it was planed but simply it cannot happened. Iran might even be able to built its nuclear bomb break the agreement and still not be attacked. Americans will never support a war with iran at this point, never.

[N1019]

it already backfired https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/17/war-with-iran-possible-donald-trump-foreign-policy

Oh man, Trita Parsi... Iran groupie no. 1. The election of Trump really killed his boner. But seriously, he's totally ignoring the true purpose of the JCPOA. He's falling for the plausible deniability element of the deal, i.e. making it appear that America does not want war (and instead made a fantastic offer to Iran), and he's carrying on with the fallacy that the only alternative to the deal was war.

[N1019]

I agree it was planed but simply it cannot happened. Iran might even be able to built its nuclear bomb break the agreement and still not be attacked. Americans will never support a war with iran at this point, never.

Yeah, but it's always the way. They didn't want to enter WWI or II, either. Without 9/11 they might not have supported Afghanistan and Iraq. And look at Syria and Libya - they took a different approach and those countries were still destroyed. The people can be maniipulated into just about anything. Start blowing shit up, blame it on Iran and the patriots will want blood.

[Babak]

Yeah, but it's always the way. They didn't want to enter WWI or II, either. Without 9/11 they might not have supported Afghanistan and Iraq. And look at Syria and Libya - they took a different approach and those countries were still destroyed. The people can be maniipulated into just about anything. Start blowing shit up, blame it on Iran and the patriots will want blood.

What about that recent supposed ISIS attack that happened several weeks ago.

[N1019]

What about that recent supposed ISIS attack that happened several weeks ago.

Well, yeah. I love the way the IRI government dismissed it as nothing, just some firecrackers. They must have been shitting bricks. The whole image of Iran's being an island of stability (which is stolen from Carter's 31Dec1977 speech to the Shah) is in tatters.

Whoever planned that attack struck right at the heart of the "revolution". The death toll was low but it was a symbolic act.

It was also probably an intel gathering exercise. They can see how the state forces responded etc.

It's reasonable to assume that there will be more attacks as time goes on and whoever they are has time to regroup.

[Babak]

Well, yeah. I love the way the IRI government dismissed it as nothing, just some firecrackers. They must have been shitting bricks. The whole image of Iran's being an island of stability (which is stolen from Carter's 31Dec1977 speech to the Shah) is in tatters.

Whoever planned that attack struck right at the heart of the "revolution". The death toll was low but it was a symbolic act.

So at this point, its either attack iran or attack iran

[N1019]

So at this point, its either attack iran or attack iran

It seems to me that Iran was always the final target of the current wave of attacks on middle eastern states. They went after every non-compliant regime in the region, and now Iran is the only one still left intact. There's no good reason why it too won't be taken out.

Iran was left until last because it is the biggest challenge, and they wanted it to be as isolated as possible beforehand.

The arguments I see might have some merit but I think they are just wishful thinking from decent people who don't want to see another country destroyed. We have to be honest with ourselves, look at the patterns of past behaviour and so on, and ask, Why should America and her allies stop now? They have no good reason to stop. Destroying non-compliant states is what they do.

The only alternative is possibly for Iran to totally submit to the Anglo-American/Israeli demands. While some people have speculated that it is happening behind closed doors, I'm not buying it. I could be wrong. I hope I am, but at the moment I can't see it.

[Babak]

It seems to me that Iran was always the final target of the current wave of attacks on middle eastern states. They went after every non-compliant regime in the region, and now Iran is the only one still left intact. There's no good reason why it too won't be taken out.

Iran was left until last because it is the biggest challenge, and they wanted it to be as isolated as possible beforehand.

The arguments I see might have some merit but I think they are just wishful thinking from decent people who don't want to see another country destroyed. We have to be honest with ourselves, look at the patterns of past behaviour and so on, and ask, Why should America and her allies stop now? They have no good reason to stop. Destroying non-compliant states is what they do.

The only alternative is possibly for Iran to totally submit to the Anglo-American/Israeli demands. While some people have speculated that it is happening behind closed doors, I'm not buying it. I could be wrong. I hope I am, but at the moment I can't see it.

yea i doubt that will happen tbh, theres just no way.

[N1019]

Trump is allegedly trying to bypass the Department of State in seeking a path to "decertifying" Iran's compliance with the JCPOA in October.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/07/21/trump-assigns-white-house-team-to-target-iran-nuclear-deal-sidelining-state-department/


According to right wing sources (for what they are worth), people like Sahar Nowruzzadeh were involved in the JCPOA and Iran policy in the White House and at State, and are trying to force the executive to accept that Iran is in compliance, which was obviously not the purpose of the JCPOA to begin with. Finding Iran non-compliant with the nuclear deal as justification for an escalation of hostilities was always the name of the game.

Nowruzzadeh was labelled as an Iranian spy by Zionists and right wing mouthpieces generally. Whether or not she is a spy, it seems plausible that an Iranian-American with ties to the NIAC and Trita Parsi might not be interested in pursuing war with Iran.

[Babak]

Trump is allegedly trying to bypass the Department of State in seeking a path to "decertifying" Iran's compliance with the JCPOA in October.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/07/21/trump-assigns-white-house-team-to-target-iran-nuclear-deal-sidelining-state-department/


According to right wing sources (for what they are worth), people like Sahar Nowruzzadeh were involved in the JCPOA and Iran policy in the White House and at State, and are trying to force the executive to accept that Iran is in compliance, which is obviously not the purpose of the JCPOA to begin with. Finding Iran non-compliant with the nuclear deal as justification for an escalation of hostilities was always what the game was about. Nowruzzadeh was labelled as a spy by Zionists and right wing mouthpieces generally. Whether she is or not, it seems plausible that an Iranian-American with ties to the NIAC and Trita Parsi might not be interested in pursuing war with Iran.

Would this be a good thing or bad thing bro lol

[N1019]

Would this be a good thing or bad thing bro lol

I guess that depends on your perspective. Declaring Iran as non-compliant with the JCPOA would give the US a green light for punitive action and mean inching closer to war. At the very least it would mean more American sanctions and, depending on the gravity of the case brought against Iran, it could mean full snapback of sanctions lifted under the JCPOA. The Eurocucks might not be happy about it but wouldn't have much of a choice.

[Babak]

I guess that depends on your perspective. Declaring Iran as non-compliant with the JCPOA would give the US a green light for punitive action and mean inching closer to war. At the very least it would mean more American sanctions and, depending on the gravity of the case brought against Iran, it could mean full snapback of sanctions lifted under the JCPOA. The Eurocucks might not be happy about it but wouldn't have much of a choice.

Well, fuck. Trita parsa was always a dumbass anyway

[N1019]

Well, fuck. Trita parsa was always a dumbass anyway

Trita Parsi showed himself, to use an Americanism, to be a dumbass. He actually believed the JCPOA was a genuine effort to seek peace with Iran, and he acted like the GOP would be interested in peace once they got into office.

If the sanctions go back on, expect your next holiday to Iran to be cheaper, although inflation will go double digits again.

Legislation authorizing the use of the US military to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is already active in Washington DC.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-joint-resolution/10/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22iran%22%5D%7D&r=7

Worst case scenario would be an alleged breach of the JCPOA leading to passage of that bill into law, followed by an Anglo-American-Israeli-Saudi attack, ostensibly to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

[Babak]

Trita Parsi showed himself, to use an Americanism, to be a dumbass. He actually believed the JCPOA was a genuine effort to seek peace with Iran, and he acted like the GOP would be interested in peace once they got into office.

If the sanctions go back on, expect your next holiday to Iran to be cheaper, although inflation will go double digits again.

Legislation authorizing the use of the US military to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is already active in Washington DC.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-joint-resolution/10/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22iran%22%5D%7D&r=7

Worst case scenario would be an alleged breach of the JCPOA leading to passage of that bill into law, followed by an Anglo-American-Israeli-Saudi attack, ostensibly to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

I think its already working. Manipulation at its finest.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoufBxTcSQM

[N1019]

I think its already working. Manipulation at its finest.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoufBxTcSQM

Those poor sods are being led down the garden path.

We have the following bad signs of war on the horizon, among others:
1. General Wesley Clark's revelation in 2007 about what he heard and saw in 2001, i.e. Iran being the final target for a remodelled middle east
2. The Brookings Institution's 2009 paper Which Path to Persia? which laid out exactly how a nuke deal could be used as a pretext for war
3. The bill H.J. Res 10 introduced by a Democrat before Trump had even taken office, just sitting there, waiting for the right moment to be passed into law, combined with Israel's strong commitment to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and Prince MbS's assertion about taking the war to Iran's soil
4. Trump stating that the entire Iran policy of his administration is under review
5. Tillerson's assertion that the US will "work towards support of those elements inside of Iran that would lead to a peaceful transition of that government. Those elements are there, certainly as we know.”
6. Reports from respected media outlets (for what it's worth) that Trump is now bypassing Dept of State on the JCPOA because they favour the deal

[Vyasa]

Trump is allegedly trying to bypass the Department of State in seeking a path to "decertifying" Iran's compliance with the JCPOA in October.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/07/21/trump-assigns-white-house-team-to-target-iran-nuclear-deal-sidelining-state-department/


According to right wing sources (for what they are worth), people like Sahar Nowruzzadeh were involved in the JCPOA and Iran policy in the White House and at State, and are trying to force the executive to accept that Iran is in compliance, which was obviously not the purpose of the JCPOA to begin with. Finding Iran non-compliant with the nuclear deal as justification for an escalation of hostilities was always the name of the game.

Nowruzzadeh was labelled as an Iranian spy by Zionists and right wing mouthpieces generally. Whether or not she is a spy, it seems plausible that an Iranian-American with ties to the NIAC and Trita Parsi might not be interested in pursuing war with Iran.

why are you pretending to be a European? You're obviously an Iranian living in Australia

[N1019]

why are you pretending to be a European? You're obviously an Iranian living in Australia

Yeah, I have an interest in the next major middle eastern war, which makes me Iranian. No-one else is allowed to care about it, right?

[Babak]

Anyway, to sum it up, Iran is fucked.

[Babak]

Those poor sods are being led down the garden path.

We have the following bad signs of war on the horizon, among others:
1. General Wesley Clark's revelation in 2007 about what he heard and saw in 2001, i.e. Iran being the final target for a remodelled middle east
2. The Brookings Institution's 2009 paper Which Path to Persia? which laid out exactly how a nuke deal could be used as a pretext for war
3. The bill H.J. Res 10 introduced by a Democrat before Trump had even taken office, just sitting there, waiting for the right moment to be passed into law, combined with Israel's strong commitment to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and Prince MbS's assertion about taking the war to Iran's soil
4. Trump stating that the entire Iran policy of his administration is under review
5. Tillerson's assertion that the US will "work towards support of those elements inside of Iran that would lead to a peaceful transition of that government. Those elements are there, certainly as we know.”
6. Reports from respected media outlets (for what it's worth) that Trump is now bypassing Dept of State on the JCPOA because they favour the deal

Peaceful transition lmfao

[N1019]

Peaceful transition lmfao

Yeah, note the nuances of his words. He didn't actually say he expected or wanted a peaceful transition. He said he'd support elements that would lead to it. Not the same thing. Typical political doublespeak.

[Babak]

Yeah, note the nuances of his words. He didn't actually say he expected or wanted a peaceful transition. He said he'd support elements that would lead to it. Not the same thing. Typical political doublespeak.

what a mess

[N1019]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90ffN1-TuTQ

According to the interpretation of Tillerson's recent words in this video, "peaceful regime change" in Iran means peaceful for American troops - not Iran.

The Indian guest still doesn't want to believe war will actually happen but then admits that there could be a flashpoint. Then they start bullshitting about Iran being useful because it opposes ISIS, ignoring the likelihood of American support for ISIS when it suited them. They do seem to be mostly leftist anti-imperialists on this channel so it's no surprise they get caught up with that stuff.

[Babak]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90ffN1-TuTQ

According to the interpretation of Tillerson's recent words in this video, "peaceful regime change" in Iran means peaceful for American troops - not Iran.

The Indian guest still doesn't want to believe war will actually happen but then admits that there could be a flashpoint. Then they start bullshitting about Iran being useful because it opposes ISIS, ignoring the likelihood of American support for ISIS when it suited them. They do seem to be mostly leftist anti-imperialists on this channel so it's no surprise they get caught up with that stuff.

i guess whatever happens, happens.

[Babak]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90ffN1-TuTQ

According to the interpretation of Tillerson's recent words in this video, "peaceful regime change" in Iran means peaceful for American troops - not Iran.

The Indian guest still doesn't want to believe war will actually happen but then admits that there could be a flashpoint. Then they start bullshitting about Iran being useful because it opposes ISIS, ignoring the likelihood of American support for ISIS when it suited them. They do seem to be mostly leftist anti-imperialists on this channel so it's no surprise they get caught up with that stuff.

https://mehdimonzavitabrizi.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/10584018_661360317274457_2455830308025351461_n.jpg

[Babak]

I don't understand nothing about politics

but I just hope the return of the Persian Empire

The U.S needs an excuse to attack another country and thats what the JCPOA is in place for. If Iran breaks the deal, the U.S can legally attack Iran along with allies.