Iran boosts budget for missiles, Revolutionary Guards

[N1019]

Russia isn't going to be happy about losing a possible friend / ally, especially if they become Pro-US.

I think things are starting to change between trump and putin so that sort of thing doesn't happen.

Lets see, Syrian conflict isn't exactly the situation that makes them best friends but they are on better terms compared to former presidents.

I thought that was stupid of him and pissed me the fuck off. Though, if something like that does happen to Iran, this time, Russia and china won't be just watching.

Russia isn't going to save Iran. It didn't save Syria from destruction, and Syria is a long term ally of Russia. The Russia-Iran relationship is more recent and superficial, rooted in common opposition to American hegemony, they are both affected by sanctions, trade opportunities etc. They don't trust each other, Russia won't sell Iran the latest technology, they disagree on Israel, etc. The thing about Russia everyone needs to understand is that Russia takes care of Russia. They can't afford not to.

You have to take a step back and think about how other countries view Iran. It's not an easy country to deal with.

Significantly, Russia and Iran don't have a mutual defence pact, and I guarantee you they never will. That means if the US attacks Iran, Russia is under no obligation to do anything. There is no way Russia is going to lock itself into a possible war with the US by entering into such an arrangement. The Russians aren't crazy. They know the Iranians are dangerous, and that by pushing the boundaries of American tolerance it is risky to get into bed with them. Russia might provide Iran with equipment and intel, but that's about it. If Iran is torn apart from inside like Syria, they could do more, but we're not talking major troop deployments. Beyond that, they will be more or less on their own. As for China, forget it.

[Babak]

Russia isn't going to save Iran. It didn't save Syria from destruction, and Syria is a long term ally of Russia. The Russia-Iran relationship is more recent and superficial, rooted in common opposition to American hegemony, they are both affected by sanctions, trade opportunities etc. They don't trust each other, Russia won't sell Iran the latest technology, they disagree on Israel, etc. The thing about Russia everyone needs to understand is that Russia takes care of Russia. They can't afford not to.

You have to take a step back and think about how other countries view Iran. It's not an easy country to deal with.

Significantly, Russia and Iran don't have a mutual defence pact, and I guarantee you they never will. That means if the US attacks Iran, Russia is under no obligation to do anything. There is no way Russia is going to lock itself into a possible war with the US by entering into such an arrangement. The Russians aren't crazy. They know the Iranians are dangerous, and that by pushing the boundaries of American tolerance it is risky to get into bed with them. Russia might provide Iran with equipment and intel, but that's about it. Beyond that, they will be more or less on their own. As for China, forget it.

So really, this is a lose-lose situation lmao

[N1019]

So really, this is a lose-lose situation lmao

People just need to let go of the idea of Russia as saviour. Russia is always acting in its own interests, which don't necessarily have anything to do with helping other countries. The destruction of Syria is a good example of that. Russia was never going to stop it from happening, they just took the opportunity to apply pressure to the US, to make sure they didn't get a free ride, to get themselves a seat at the table and bargaining chip to use in negotations with the US. Russia also used its relationship with Iran as a bargaining chip with the US, but since the JCPOA Russia's relevance has faded in that area. Before the JCPOA, Iran needed Russia more than it does now, but Iran always needed Russia more than Russia needed Iran. It's all about what's in it for Russia. To be honest I can't blame the Russians for playing it that way.

[Babak]

People just need to let go of the idea of Russia as saviour. Russia is always acting in its own interests, which don't necessarily have anything to do with helping other countries. The destruction of Syria is a good example of that. Russia was never going to stop it from happening, they just took the opportunity to apply pressure to the US, to make sure they didn't get a free ride, to get themselves a seat at the table and bargaining chip to use in negotations with the US. Russia also used its relationship with Iran as a bargaining chip with the US, but since the JCPOA Russia's relevance has faded in that area. It's all about what's in it for Russia. To be honest I can't blame the Russians for doing it.

Putin's a good leader, i'll give you that

[N1019]

Putin's a good leader, i'll give you that

Russia is in a bad position due to the low oil price, sanctions from the West etc. They need to extract all the concessions they can to alleviate their hardship. Syria and Iran are bargaining chips to that end.

[N1019]

Not a good move, if you ask me.

This is what you might call dangerous resistance against a stronger opponent - the sort of thing that can see your testicles thrown in a vice.

They know Iran is not only KSA's and Israel's enemy no. 1 but also America's. Talk about pushing their luck. Sure, in itself, it might not amount to much. It could be more symbolic than anything else. Perhaps the aforementioned enemies of Iran will wait to see whether that is the case before responding.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/w...di-arabia.html

[Babak]

Not a good move, if you ask me.

This is what you might call dangerous resistance against a stronger opponent - the sort of thing that can see your testicles thrown in a vice.

They know Iran is not only KSA's and Israel's enemy no. 1 but also America's. Talk about pushing their luck. Sure, in itself, it might not amount to much. It could be more symbolic than anything else. Perhaps the aforementioned enemies of Iran will wait to see whether that is the case before responding.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/w...di-arabia.html

Yea, i saw this yesterday.

Not a good sign.

[N1019]

Oct. 15, 2017. Put it in your calendar.

By that date, President Donald Trump must yet again certify that Iran is in compliance with the terms of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

Indeed, owing to the infinite wisdom of the “world’s greatest deliberative body,” the U.S. Senate, the president must make such a certification every 90 days. Trump has done so twice, although each time at the last possible moment and only following a knock-down, drag-out fight in which a bunch of globalist cucks, also known as Trump’s national security team, implored him not to walk away from the agreement. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Trump said, “If it was up to me, I would have had them noncompliant 180 days ago.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-nex...140223140.html

Globalist cucks? lol.

So, supposedly, there is this struggle and debate going on within the Trump Administration about Iran (and other issues). We are being told that Trump and his warhawk associates constantly have to be dragged, kicking and screaming, back to a more reasonable position by people who supposedly know better.

But is there any evidence that this reported struggle is real?

Not much, I'd say. Too much of what we hear in that regard comprises of unverified, and unverifiable, reports. An unnamed White House official said this, an unnamed intelligence official said that... Combined with constant rhetoric about American weakness and incompetence, and very selective examination of facts, mainstream media reports on Iran just can't be taken seriously.

More likely, I suspect, is that the theatrics are a deliberate display for public consumption, and the US government's approach is more carefully co-ordinated out of public view.

So, while we should take the words of the media with a grain of salt, things of which we can be more confident are verified actions, like H.J. Res 10.

While all that BS is going on, who was it who put H.J. Res 10 on the table? You know, that document which, if passed into law, authorizes military action against Iran? It was a Democrat, Alcee Hastings, just before the end of Obama's second term. Hastings has a mixed record on war, but as an example of his past behaviour, he voted against the use of military force in Iraq and voted for the removal of American forces from Afghanistan.

How many other countries out there have an H.J. Res 10-like document applying to them? I haven't even seen one for North Korea. To me, it's clearly part of a long game.

[N1019]

According to John Bolton, former American Ambassador to the UN, the US should:

- End all landing and docking rights for all Iranian aircraft and ships at key allied ports;
- End all visas for Iranians, including so called “scholarly,” student, sports, or other exchanges;
- Demand payment with a set deadline on outstanding U.S. federal-court judgments against Iran for terrorism, including 9/11;
- Announce U.S. support for the democratic Iranian opposition;
- Expedite delivery of bunker-buster bombs;
- Announce U.S. support for Kurdish national aspirations, including Kurds in Iran, Iraq, and Syria;
- Provide assistance to Balochis, Khuzestan Arabs, Kurds, and others — also to internal resistance among labour unions, students, and women’s groups;
- Actively organize opposition to Iranian political objectives in the U.N.

IV. Conclusion This effort should be the Administration’s highest diplomatic priority, commanding all necessary time, attention, and resources. We can no longer wait to eliminate the threat posed by Iran. The Administration’s justification of its decision will demonstrate to the world that we understand the threat to our civilization; we must act and encourage others to meet their responsibilities as well.

More details.
According to Bolton, the US should:

• bolster the case for abrogation by providing new, declassified information on Iran’s unacceptable behaviour around the world.
• produce a white paper stressing the many dangerous concessions made to reach this deal, such as allowing Iran to continue to enrich uranium; allowing Iran to operate a heavy-water reactor; and allowing Iran to operate and develop advanced centrifuges while the JCPOA is in effect. Utterly inadequate verification and enforcement mechanisms and Iran’s refusal to allow inspections of military sites also provide important reasons for the Administration’s decision.
• highlight Iran’s unacceptable behavior, such as its role as the world’s central banker for international terrorism, including its directions and control over Hezbollah and its actions in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon.

There are four basic elements to the development and implementation of the campaign plan to decertify and abrogate the Iran nuclear deal:
1. Early, quiet consultations with key players such as the U.K., France, Germany, Israel, and Saudi Arabia, to tell them we are going to abrogate the deal based on outright violations and other unacceptable Iranian behavior, and seek their input.
2. Prepare the documented strategic case for withdrawal through a detailed white paper (including declassified intelligence as appropriate) explaining why the deal is harmful to U.S. national interests, how Iran has violated it, and why Iran’s behavior more broadly has only worsened since the deal was agreed.
3. A greatly expanded diplomatic campaign should immediately follow the announcement, especially in Europe and the Middle East, and we should ensure continued emphasis on the Iran threat as a top diplomatic and strategic priority.
4. Develop and execute Congressional and public diplomacy efforts to build domestic and foreign support.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ton-memo-trump



Serious stuff. In conjunction with other material already in circulation, the above constitutes a comprehensive plan for abrogating the JCPOA and major destabilization of Iran as a prelude to war and regime change. It's reasonable to assume that there would be secret elements of the above plan that would not be released to the public, too. They never tell us everything.

Has anyone seen such comprehensive planning laid out for any other country lately?

[Babak]

According to John Bolton, former American Ambassador to the UN, the US should:




More details.
According to Bolton, the US should:




http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ton-memo-trump



Serious stuff. In conjunction with other material already in circulation, the above constitutes a comprehensive plan for abrogating the JCPOA and major destabilization of Iran as a prelude to war and regime change. It's reasonable to assume that there would be secret elements of the above plan that would not be released to the public, too. They never tell us everything.

Has anyone seen such comprehensive planning laid out for any other country lately?

Holy shit..