If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MSNBC) Amusing US officials are desperately searching for new bad names to call Iran besides "world's fourth largest oil producer"   (msnbc.msn.com) divider line 68
More: Amusing, United States, oil producers, Iran, British Embassy, nonproliferation, arms controls  
•       •       •

1160 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Dec 2011 at 8:18 AM   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»   |    Get this fabulous T-Shirt and impress the methane out of your friends! shirt it!



68 Comments   (+0 »)
   

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
rjakobi
2011-12-05 08:22:33 AM
Have you tried "Persians"?
 
Fista-Phobia
2011-12-05 08:23:00 AM
themoviebro.files.wordpress.com
 
404 page not found
2011-12-05 08:23:16 AM
www.tacomaworld.com
Axis of Evil?
 
Cake Hunter [TotalFark]
2011-12-05 08:24:06 AM
"pubetown."
 
Generation_D [TotalFark]
2011-12-05 08:25:16 AM
How about:

Next place neocon traitors and Israel wants to attack without cause and get Americans killed in.
 
Fomby_Belcher [TotalFark]
2011-12-05 08:28:01 AM
Stinking Bowl of HeathensTM
 
DarnoKonrad
2011-12-05 08:29:13 AM
Shirley
 
WaitWhatWhy
2011-12-05 08:29:32 AM
Generation_D: How about:

Next place neocon traitors and Israel wants to attack without cause and get Americans killed in.

DING DING DING, we have a winner! Tell him what he's won Hank!

Well Bob, Generation D, as well as the rest of the American public, get to watch as tax dollars get poured down the drain while an already unstable region gets thrown into further chaos! If they win the bonus round, we'll also thrown in a free nuclear war, and possibly World War III!
 
Cndn Bacon
2011-12-05 08:30:14 AM
rjakobi: Have you tried "Persians"?

Nah if you want to call them a "bad" name and get them real pissed off, call them Arabs.
 
404 page not found
2011-12-05 08:31:50 AM
WaitWhatWhy: Generation_D: How about:

Next place neocon traitors and Israel wants to attack without cause and get Americans killed in.

DING DING DING, we have a winner! Tell him what he's won Hank!

Well Bob, Generation D, as well as the rest of the American public, get to watch as tax dollars get poured down the drain while an already unstable region gets thrown into further chaos! If they win the bonus round, we'll also thrown in a free nuclear war, and possibly World War III!
timstvshowcase.com
 
Bob16
2011-12-05 08:35:36 AM
Yeah it must be tough now that "american" is the Cadillac of curse words.
 
Party Boy [TotalFark]
2011-12-05 08:39:10 AM
Lets be clear.

Oil companies and oil trade and iran is going to give you an different perspective.

I posted this last night

But the prevailing view in the Israeli government was that a U.S.-Iran dialogue would not benefit Israel because Iran was interested only in reduc- ing tensions with Washington-not with Israel."What the Iranians want is to have the U.S.recognize them as a regional superpower in the Middle East,"Israeli Gen.Amos Gilad argued.Just as it did in the Iran-Contra af- fair and the Lebanese hostage negotiations with Washington in the early 1990s,Iran would try to cut Israel out ofthe deal because Israel itself couldn't offer Tehran anything it needed. 182

This was particularly true ifU.S.-Iran relations were put in a global context,in which Washington needed to maintain some influence over Iran and its gas and oil reserves in order to keep the United States'future geopo- litical rival-China-in check."A small state is always worried that a global ally will make a deal in which it takes a global view ofthe deal and forget about local details that for a local actor are very important,"Rabinovich ex- plained. Apprehension that Washington would "sell Israel out"and pur- sue its own interests in a U.S.-Iran dialogue weighed heavily on the minds of Israeli strategists. Because Israel viewed a U.S.-Iran dialogue as a greater threat than that ofIran itself,the optimal strategy was to prevent a dialogue from materializing in the first place. This provided the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC),the most potent pro-Israeli lobby group in the United States,with a new cause to rally around. 182
Rabin had always had a prob- lematic relationship with American Jewish organizations,partly because of his secular inclinations and upbringing,but mainly because ofwhat he per- ceived as repeated attempts by American Jewish leaders to sideline Israel's government (particularly its Labor governments) by approaching the U.S. administration on Israel's behalf.Lobbying the administration should be off-limits to AIPAC,he insisted,whereas Capitol Hill was fair game. "He felt that the community had become too big ofa part ofthe bilateral [U.S.- Israel] relationship," 183
Israel's new push against Iran pro- vided AIPAC with an opportunity to reinvent itselfin the Oslo era,when its traditional function ofcountering Arab influence in Washington had be- come obsolete."AIPAC made Iran a major issue since they didn't have any other issue to champion,"said Shai Feldman ofthe Jaffee Center for Strate- gic Studies in Tel Aviv."The U.S.was in favor ofthe peace process,so what would they push for?" AIPAC needed a new issue,and Israel needed help in turning Washington against Iran.It was a win-win situation. 183
By mid-1994,Israel and AIPAC turned the full force oftheir diplomatic and lobby power against Iran.Rabin's advisers requested that he ask the West to impose "some potent economic sanctions against Iran."75 This wasn't an easy task,because even though Iran wasn't a popular country in the United States,it wasn't considered a threat.But whatever challenges lay ahead,they could be resolved with AIPAC's help.Rabin held a teleconfer- ence with U.S.Jewish leaders in September 1994 to coordinate the strategy. His message was clear-Iran was the greatest threat to Middle East peace. "Behind [the Palestinian rejectionists] there is an Islamic country,Iran,that in addition tries to develop in the coming seven to fifteen years nuclear weapons and ground-to-ground missiles that can reach every part ofthe Middle East,"he said. 184
Knowing the Clinton administration's commitment to the peace pro- cess,Rabin used the Oslo agreement as a hook."You guys got to do some- thing about the Iranians,because they are killing us,"Israel told the Clinton administration,according to Ken Pollack,who served in the Clinton White House,suggesting that Tel Aviv couldn't pursue peace with the Arab inner circle unless the United States adopted a tougher line on Iran on the periph- ery.At the behest ofthe Israeli government,AIPAC drafted and circulated a seventy-four-page paper in Washington arguing that Iran was a threat not only to Israel,but also to the United States and the West."The pro-Israeli community turned strongly against Iran,influencing U.S.policy on Iran in an almost emotional way,"former National Security Advisor Brent Scow- croft recalled. 184
In late 1994,Rabin accused North Korea ofhaving supplied Iran with Scud ground-to-ground missiles with a range ofthree hundred miles- much less than the distance between Iran and Israel.A month later,citing unnamed American and Israeli officials,the New York Times reported that Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program was ahead ofschedule and could result in a preemptive Israeli strike against its reactors.Iran responded by issuing a stern warning to Israel."Should Israel commit such a blunder,we will teach her a lesson not to ever attempt another aggression against Iran," Iran Speaker ofthe Parliament Ali Akbar Nateq Noori told Iran News. But these Iranian statements only played into the hands ofIsrael,whose efforts to portray Iran as a threat benefited from Tehran's tough talk. 184
By October 1994,Washington started to adopt the Israeli line on Iran. In response to Israeli pressure-and not to Iranian actions-Washington's rhetoric on Iran began to mirror Israel's talking points.U.S.Secretary of State Warren Christopher told an audience at Georgetown University in October 1994 that "Iran is the world's most significant sponsor ofterrorism and the most ardent opponent ofthe Middle East peace process.The inter- national community has been far too tolerant ofIran's outlaw behavior.... The evidence is overwhelming:Iran is intent on projecting terror and ex- tremism across the Middle East and beyond.Only a concerted international effort can stop it." 185

But neither America's adoption ofthe Israeli line on Iran nor Dual Containment was sufficient.Having achieved these goals,Israel raised the bar and requested additional pressure on Iran. After all,while the Clinton administration had adopted Israel's rhetoric and hard stance on Iran in the political sphere,U.S.-Iran trade remained unaffected by Dual Contain- ment.Trade between the two countries totaled $3.8 billion in 1994,with an additional $1.2 billion in goods sold by U.S.companies through foreign subsidiaries,making the United States one ofIran's largest trading part- ners. 185
"Basically,more American money was being sent to Iran than any other country.That's what got us [AIPAC] interested in the economic side ofit."(Remarkably,throughout the 1990s,Israel never passed any laws prohibiting Iranian-Israeli trade.) AIPAC organized a campaign to bridge the gap between Washington's political and economic approach to Iran.Together with the Israeli government,it pressured the Clinton administration to lead by example,because American efforts to shut down Russian and European trade with Iran would fail unless America's political and economic policies were aligned. "The right,AIPAC,the Israelis were all screaming for new sanctions,"Pollack explained,adding that the Clinton administration saw Iran only through the prism ofthe Israeli-Palestinian conflict. 186 The campaign did not win much traction until the Rafsanjani government offered the American oil company Conoco a lucrative oil deal in 1995. In the midst ofthe Israeli campaign to impose sanctions on Iran,Rafsanjani made one last effort to improve relations with the United States.The repeated snubs from the United States had cost Rafsanjani dearly at home,but now the Iranians followed a double policy.On the one hand,they courted Washington when possible,and on the other hand,they supported Palestinian Islamists and took the lead against Israel in the Islamic world to strengthen Iran's appeal in the Arab street.This would make it more difficult to exclude Iran from regional affairs in the future,Tehran reasoned,because it would make Iran an even more potent spoiler. Because a direct political rapprochement with the United States remained unlikely,Rafsanjani chose to use Iran's economic ties with Washington to create areas of common interest that could later pave the way for a political rapprochement. American investments in Iran's ailing oil industry would be a winwin solution,Rafsanjani figured. 186 In his attempts to expand Iran's economic relations with the international community,Rafsanjani had for years fought to reopen Iran's oil industry to foreign companies.The symbolism ofthis move was significant. The oil industry had played a central role in the Iranian revolution and in the country's economic and political development earlier in the twentieth century.Iran opened bidding for production agreements for two ofits offshore oil fields to international companies in 1994.The first oil contract after the revolution,worth $1 billion,was expected to go to the French-owned Total.However,after having negotiated with Conoco,Iran announced on March 6,1995,that the contract would go to the Americans. 186 The deal was approved by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei himselfand was intended as an olive branch to Washington,the Iranians say.To ensure the blessing ofthe White House,Conoco had kept the U.S.government closely informed ofits negotiations.The State Department had repeatedly reassured Conoco that the White House would approve the deal. 187 For AIPAC,the Conoco deal "was a coincidence and a convenient target." The organization went into high gear to use the Iranian offer not only to scuttle the Conoco deal,but also to put an end to all U.S.-Iran trade. In a report that it released on April 2,1995,titled "Comprehensive U.S. Sanctions Against Iran:A Plan for Action,"AIPAC argued that Iran must be punished for its actions against Israel."Iran's leaders reject the existence of Israel.Moreover,Iran views the peace process as an American attempt to legalize Israel's occupation ofPalestinian,Muslim lands,"it said. Pressured by Congress,AIPAC,and the Israelis,President Clinton swiftly scrapped the deal by issuing two executive orders that effectively prohibited all trade with Iran. 187
The decision was announced on April 30 by Clinton in a speech before the World Jewish Congress. A day later,Christopher told journalists that the controversial decision was motivated by Iran's "repugnant behavior"- Tehran still sponsored terrorism, opposed the Middle East peace process, and was trying to acquire nuclear weapons,he argued. But in reality,targeting the Conoco deal-which was a result ofTehran's eagerness to improve relations with the United States-was "a major demonstration of [American] support for Israel." Immediately,speculation in the U.S.media began on "where U.S.foreign policy ends and Israeli interests begin." 187

With AIPAC and Israel lobbying against accepting Iranian olive branches,and with no major political campaign in favor ofa U.S.-Iran rapprochement,changing course on Iran had no political downside.(Conoco's efforts to reverse the decision were hopelessly unsuccessful.) "From a political standpoint,nobody pays a price to be tough on Iran,"Ross commented. 188
(it should be noted how oil companies fought against it, unsuccessfully my point)
AIPAC launched a formidable lobbying campaign and managed to win extensive support for the bill-the Iran Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA)-on Capitol Hill. ILSA went beyond the executive orders that President Clinton had promulgated sixteen months earlier,because it targeted both American and non-American companies that invested $40 million or more in the Iranian oil and gas sector.The official aim ofthe bill was to deny Iran and Libya revenues that could be used to finance international terrorism and limit the flow ofresources necessary to obtain weapons ofmass destruction. The Clinton administration balked.Robert Pelletreau,assistant secretary ofstate at the time,testified in Congress against the bill, arguing that extraterritorial sanctions would be counterproductive by alienating countries whose cooperation the United States needed to cripple the Iranian regime."We want to isolate the Iranians,not become isolated ourselves,"he told the House International Relations Committee. But Clinton was no match for AIPAC's influence in Congress.The bill passed the House ofRepresentatives 415 votes to 0 and was reluctantly signed into law by the president in August 1996. 188
Though AIPAC's efforts had helped eliminate billions ofdollars worth of trade with Iran,the pro-Israel lobby felt that ILSA actually should be welcomed by American businesses because it primarily targeted foreign companies."We promulgated ILSA ...to level the playing field,"explained Weissman ofAIPAC."We wanted to show that we were not penalizing American business for foreign policy reasons....But nobody [in the busi- ness community] liked it.Maybe it was naïve ofus."Much ofcorporate America was infuriated by the bill.Even though the ILSA sanctions targeted foreign companies,they still posed a danger to American companies because ofthe potential threat ofcountersanctions by European and Asian governments.To make matters worse,even though it pressed for U.S.sanctions,Israel itselfcontinued to purchase Iranian goods through third countries."There were many times over the years that a few ofthe things Israel did vis-à-vis Iran admittedly allowed people to perceive that we [the United States] were harder-line than they [Israel] were,"Weissman admitted. 189
These contradictions aside,ILSA was a major success for AIPAC and Israel-not as a result offorcing a change in Iranian foreign policy,because it never did.In retrospect,Indyk admits that ILSA "was counterproductive to our efforts to try to change Iranian behavior because it split us from our allies,the Europeans." Rather,the success ofILSA lay in the almost irremovable political obstacle it created to any effort at improving U.S.-Iran relations-a critical objective ofIsrael as a result ofits fear that a dialogue between Washington and Tehran would come at the expense ofIsrael's strategic role."We were against it [U.S.-Iran dialogue] ...because the interest ofthe U.S.did not coincide with ours,"Israeli Deputy Defense minister Sneh admitted. 189
 
Party Boy [TotalFark]
2011-12-05 08:42:19 AM
Theres plenty more on that I can provide.

US oil companies had US policy on iran in the 1950's.

They lost it to groups like AIPAC in the 1990's. Read a short PDF
 
Hetfield
2011-12-05 08:46:58 AM
DarnoKonrad: Shirley

You can't be serious.
 
HotWingConspiracy
2011-12-05 08:54:25 AM
The United States and Israel have not ruled out military action against Iran's nuclear facilities if diplomacy fails

When did we try diplomacy?
 
Your Silence is Killing Kurds
2011-12-05 08:54:54 AM
it'll be amazing if freedom can take hold in Iran next year
 
Alphax
2011-12-05 08:56:34 AM
HotWingConspiracy: The United States and Israel have not ruled out military action against Iran's nuclear facilities if diplomacy fails

When did we try diplomacy?

Good question.. I don't think either nation has any direct diplomatic contact with Iran.
 
404 page not found
2011-12-05 08:56:58 AM
Your Silence is Killing Kurds: it'll be amazing if freedom can take hold in Iran next year
 
DarnoKonrad
2011-12-05 08:58:09 AM
HotWingConspiracy: The United States and Israel have not ruled out military action against Iran's nuclear facilities if diplomacy fails

When did we try diplomacy?

The Axis of Evil speech of course.
 
Headso
2011-12-05 09:04:39 AM
I thought the headline said "new band names to call Iran" at first..
 
Notabunny
2011-12-05 09:08:19 AM
DarnoKonrad: Shirley

Susan? (new window)
 
PanicMan
2011-12-05 09:09:32 AM
Iran's leaders are trying to bait the US into doing something stupid so they can stay in power. That's all that's happening.
 
Gergesa
2011-12-05 09:11:23 AM
No pics of hot Iranians?
 
BitwiseShift
2011-12-05 09:15:05 AM
Not to worry. Soon there will be 100% employment for straight Farsi-Mandarin translators, even more for bilingual ones.
 
Alphax
2011-12-05 09:15:13 AM
Gergesa: No pics of hot Iranians?

We had an Iranian Farker a while back who sometimes posted links to a lot of gorgeous Iranian scenery. Both natural outdoors shots and great Persian architecture. I wonder what happened to him.
 
tricycleracer
2011-12-05 09:15:29 AM
rjakobi: Have you tried "Persians"?

They wear gold chains and drive M3s?
 
DarnoKonrad
2011-12-05 09:16:00 AM
Gergesa: No pics of hot Iranians?

i.imgur.com
 
Xai
2011-12-05 09:17:21 AM
Yay, just what we need, another war.
 
xria
2011-12-05 09:24:21 AM
HotWingConspiracy: The United States and Israel have not ruled out military action against Iran's nuclear facilities if diplomacy fails

When did we try diplomacy?

Diplomacy is when another country does what the US wants due to the threat of force, as opposed to the use of force.
 
Party Boy [TotalFark]
2011-12-05 09:28:41 AM
HotWingConspiracy: When did we try diplomacy?

I posted one example of that in the link above

On September 11,2001,America discovered that the real Islamic threat did not lay in Shia Iran-as Israel had insisted since 1991-but in extremist elements in the Sunni world. 225
But now,the Iranians were eager to offer their help to Washington and show America the strategic benefits ofcooperation with Iran."The Iranians had real contacts with important players in Afghanistan and were prepared to use their influence in constructive ways in coordina- tion with the United States,"recalled Flynt Leverett,then senior director for Middle East affairs in the National Security Council. The plan that had been prepared by Powell called for cooperation with Iran that would be used as a platform for persuading Tehran to terminate its involvement with anti-Israeli terrorist groups in return for a positive strategic relationship with Washington. The plan incensed Israel.Suddenly,much like after the end ofthe Cold War,events in the Middle East risked making Israel a burden rather than an asset to the United States,while giving Iran a chance to prove its value to America.Ifa U.S.-Iran dialogue was initiated,there would be "a lot ofconcern in Israel,"Yossi Alpher,an adviser to Barak and a former Mossad official,told me."Where are we [Israel] in this dialogue? Will the U.S.consult with us about our needs and fears? Will we be part ofsome package deal with Iran and ifso,what part?"Alpher's comment reflected Israelis'inherent fear about their relations with the United States: would the United States protect Israel's interests in geostrategic conflicts in which the interests ofthe two allies were not necessarily aligned? More specifically,Israel 226 feared that a U.S.-Iran rapprochement wouldn't entail Iranian missile disarmament or Iranian recognition of the Jewish State.American geopolitical interests,they thought-particularly the need to contain China's rise by controlling Beijing's access to energy through Iran-could prompt Washington to sacrifice its commitments to Israel. 227
forced all states to reassess their position and role in the post-9/11 era.With Britain as the go-between,Washington courted Iran while it kept Israel at arm's length.And just as the British government had done in 1991 regarding the Persian GulfWar,Britain Foreign Secretary Jack Straw suggested that Israel was partly to blame.In a statement that the Israelis called an "obscenity"and a "stab in the back,"Straw implied that terrorism and the festering Israeli-Palestinian dispute might be linked to the 9/11 attacks. 227

Israel and U.S.neoconservatives,who had found their way back to the corridors ofpower after Bush's election,had a different plan in mind.America should put all the actors it accused ofsupporting terror on notice-particularly Iran and the Palestinian Authority.In a letter signed by forty-one prominent neoconservatives,including William Kristol,Richard Perle, and Charles Krauthammer,Bush was urged to target not only al-Qaeda,but also Hezbollah and demand that Iran and Syria immediately cease all military, financial,and political support for that organization.Ifthey refused to comply,Bush should "consider appropriate measures ofretaliation against these known state sponsors ofterrorism." Starting a war with Iran and Syria could overstretch the United States,but it would also put America and Israel on the same side in the war and increase-rather than decrease-the United States'need for Israel. 227
At first,the neoconservatives made only modest progress.As the United States was beginning its military operations in Afghanistan,State Department and National Security Council officials began meeting secretly with Iranian diplomats in Paris and Geneva in October 2001,under the sponsorship ofLakhdar Brahimi,head ofthe United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan. The contacts were initiated by Ambassador James Dobbins, the Bush administration's special envoy for Afghanistan.Fully supported by Powell,Dobbins told Brahimi that he would like to meet with the Iranians, and within a few days officials from the Iranian Foreign Ministry contacted Dobbins to offer their assistance.In the initial meetings German and Italian 227 delegations also attended to provide Iran and the United States political cover.Their attendance gave the talks,which soon were dubbed the Geneva Channel,a multilateral appearance.In reality,however,the discussions were bilateral and the highest-level contacts between officials of the two countries since the Iran-Contra scandal. 228
The talks progressed better than expected.The discussions focused on "how to effectively unseat the Taliban and,once the Taliban was gone,how to stand up an Afghan government,"and the Iranians gave extensive assistance to the United States in the war,unaware ofwhat was about to unfold after the success in Afghanistan. The Iranian diplomats impressed their American and European counterparts tremendously with their knowledge and expertise about Afghanistan and the Taliban.And Iran's help was not negligible.The Iranians offered their air bases to the United States,they offered to perform search-and-rescue missions for downed American pilots, they served as a bridge between the Northern Alliance and the United States in the fight against the Taliban,and on occasion they even used U.S.infor- mation to find and kill fleeing al-Qaeda leaders. Though Dobbins's mandate was limited to talks on Afghanistan,a tight-knit group around Powell had prepared a secret comprehensive package ofcarrots on a stick to offer the Iranians.Unlike the Pentagon,the State Department favored a strategic opening to Iran,not just tactical discussions.The American diplomats realized that the cooperation over Afghanistan could be extended to cover al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. The United States and Iran could expand their intelligence-sharing cooperation and coordinate more robust border sweeps to capture al-Qaeda fighters who were fleeing into Pakistan and Iran. 228
Nowhere was the common interest ofthe United States and Iran more clear than during the Bonn Conference ofDecember 2001,at which a number ofprominent Afghans and representatives from various countries,including the United States and Iran,met under UN auspices in the capital of Germany to decide on a plan for governing Afghanistan.The United States 228
and Iran had carefully laid the groundwork for the conference weeks in advance.Iran's political clout with the various warring Afghan groups proved to be crucial.It was Iran's influence over the Afghans and not America's threats and promises that moved the negotiations forward.It was also the Iranian delegation-and not Dobbins-that pointed out that the draft of the Bonn Declaration contained no language on democracy or any commitment on behalf of Afghanistan to help fight international terrorism.Curiously enough,Dobbins's instructions contained nothing about democracy. 229
For the Iranians,this was a moment oftriumph.Not only had a major enemy ofIran-the Taliban-been defeated,Iran had also demonstrated how it could help stabilize the region and how America could benefit from a better relationship with Tehran.Hinting at Iran's willingness to expand the discussions to include other areas,Zarifat one point told Crocker jokingly that now that the Afghan issue had been resolved,perhaps it was time to address the nuclear dispute that divided the two countries. 229
"I saw no glimmer ofinterest outside of State"for a strategic discussion with the Iranians,Dobbins recalled.In spite of Iran's central aid to the United States in Afghanistan,there was no real receptivity to Iranian goodwill measures in the Bush White House.It was 1991 all over again:There was no appreciation for Iran's strategic interest in a stable Middle East and the possibility that Tehran wanted to patch up relations with the United States. 230
Dobbins said."There was a disposition not to take Iranian offers seriously and not to give them any broader meaning."Moreover,Dobbins,argued,the administration's disinterest in a broader strategic opening was "because Washington largely focused on Iran's behavior towards Israel"rather than on its behavior toward America. 231
Israel was alarmed by Washington's cooperation with Iran.In an un- usually harsh rebuke ofBush,Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon publicly suggested that Bush was acting like 1937-1940 British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain,selling out Israel the way Chamberlain had sold out the Czechs by refusing to confront Adolf Hitler. Tensions between the United States and Israel already had begun before September 11.Powell had developed a new Middle East initiative envisioning Jerusalem as a shared capital between Israel and a Palestinian state-a noticeable departure from previous American positions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. 231
Neoconservatives in Washington and the Israeli government tirelessly sought ways to put a halt to the U.S.-Iranian cooperation.Through various means they tried to shut down the Geneva Channel and preempt any possibility that Bush would commit a Nixon-goes-to-China with Iran-that is, reach out and befriend a major U.S.foe.One approach was to manipulate the Iranians into closing the channel themselves.The idea was to encourage or provoke a radical ayatollah into criticizing the talks as a way ofcurrying favor with Iranian extremists,which would in turn force the supreme leader to back out ofthe channel.Ironically,neoconservatives who had played a leading role in the Iran-Contra scandal now attempted to sabotage the very political breakthrough they had fought for fifteen years earlier.After having been shunned from government for more than a decade,Michael Ledeen, the neoconservative friend ofIsrael former Prime Minister Shimon Peres who in the 1980s sought a U.S.-Iran dialogue together with the Israelis- and who was believed at one time by the CIA to be "an agent ofinfluence of a foreign government"-found his way back into the corridors of power after the Bush election in 2000. His access to the president was through Bush's top adviser,Karl Rove,with whom he met periodically.As the Freedom Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute,Ledeen began writing a weekly column for National Review in 2000 in which he repeatedly argued for targeting Iran.Ledeen expressed his dissatisfaction with the slow pace of Washington's march against Iran by concluding his articles with "Faster, please.Faster." 231-232
The collapse ofthe Soviet Union and defeat ofIraq in the 1991 Persian GulfWar had led to Ledeen's 180-degree turn.Just as Israel did,he now saw Iran as a rival that needed to be isolated and weakened rather than as a potential ally with whom to engage and strengthen 232
Larry Franklin,a Defense Intelligence Agency Iran analyst who would later plead guilty to spying for Israel in 2005 and who is currently serving a thirteen-year prison sentence;and Harold Rhode,a Middle East expert who played a key role in the Iran-Contra scandal. Franklin and Rhode were part ofa small,tight-knit group of neoconservative hard-liners on Iran favoring regime change in Tehran and were determined to put an end to Powell's diplomacy.Later on,their policy network at the Pentagon would include the Office of Special Plans,an alternative intelligence shop led by Douglas Feith that provided the American intelligence apparatus with inaccurate information that helped pave the way for the war with Iraq. 232-233

KARINE A AND THE "AXIS OF EVIL" This was the smoking gun the Israelis needed to halt the U.S.-Iran dialogue and put an end to Washington's pressure on Israel to deal with the Palestinians. It was a heavensent gift for Sharon,and it conveniently coincided with the visit to Israel of Gen.Anthony Zinni, Bush's new envoy to the Middle East.To many,it was almost too good to be true-so good that even Israel's allies began questioning the validity ofthe story. (more relevant stuff in text) 233-234
Washington never provided Tehran with any evidence for the Israeli claim,but it did respond to Tehran a few weeks later and asserted that the information it had was reliable and sufficient,effectively dismissing Tehran's denial. To the ever-suspicious Iranians,the entire affair was bogus. 234
In retrospect,even some Bush administration of- ficials have begun to question the affair.Some speculate that it was staged by the Israelis.Others argue that rogue elements in Iran may have been behind it.But no one in the Bush administration pursued the matter further;once the U.S.intelligence service corroborated the Israeli account,it became sacrosanct."But subsequently,we have all pondered on whether it was a hoax or not,"Wilkerson admitted. 234
Within a few days,Pentagon officials made a flurry ofaccusations against Iran,charging it with providing safe haven to fleeing al-Qaeda fighters in order to use them against the United States in post-Taliban Afghanistan. But the accusations rested on shaky grounds. 234-235
Then,on January 29,2002,in Bush's first State ofthe Union address,he lumped Iran together with Iraq and North Korea as dangerous and threat- ening states that formed an "Axis ofEvil." 235
(The phrase "axis of evil" was coined by Bush's neoconservative speech- writer, David Frum,)
For the Iranians,it was particularly bewildering to be lumped with Saddam Hussein,Iran's bitter enemy. 236
The Karine A story gave new life to Israel's long-standing campaign to have the international community declare Iran a state sponsor ofterror. 236
 
there their theyre
2011-12-05 09:36:27 AM
Party Boy: HotWingConspiracy: When did we try diplomacy?

I posted one example of that in the link above

On September 11,2001,America discovered that the real Islamic threat did not lay in ....large post that makes me sad

Why are we friends with Israel again? They do more harm than good to the US.
 
The Cat Who Walks By Herself
2011-12-05 09:39:14 AM
PanicMan: Iran's leaders are trying to bait the US into doing something stupid so they can stay in power. That's all that's happening.

I'll go with that as highly likely.
 
Party Boy [TotalFark]
2011-12-05 09:43:02 AM
there their theyre: Why are we friends with Israel again?

I cant make the font small enough to cover this long story here without pissing everyone off.

An OK start for that story in regards to the US could be the 1940's, Someone could argue it could be pushed a few decades earlier, but you have to start somewhere.

Want to sit down and watch an interview?
 
palelizard
2011-12-05 09:44:49 AM
HotWingConspiracy: The United States and Israel have not ruled out military action against Iran's nuclear facilities if diplomacy fails

When did we try diplomacy?

"You're in America now. Our idea of diplomacy is showing up with a gun in one hand and a sandwich in the other and asking which you'd prefer."

"Did you bring a sandwich?"

"What do I look like, Kissinger?"
 
Marcus Aurelius [TotalFark]
2011-12-05 09:50:01 AM
there their theyre: Party Boy: HotWingConspiracy: When did we try diplomacy?

I posted one example of that in the link above

On September 11,2001,America discovered that the real Islamic threat did not lay in ....large post that makes me sad

Why are we friends with Israel again? They do more harm than good to the US.

After the Israelis have rebuilt the temple in Jerusalem twice, the Jesus is going to come back.

Seriously.
 
Marcus Aurelius [TotalFark]
2011-12-05 09:51:58 AM
there their theyre: Party Boy: HotWingConspiracy: When did we try diplomacy?

I posted one example of that in the link above

On September 11,2001,America discovered that the real Islamic threat did not lay in ....large post that makes me sad

Why are we friends with Israel again? They do more harm than good to the US.

Here's the link.
 
Party Boy [TotalFark]
2011-12-05 09:52:03 AM
Marcus Aurelius: After the Israelis have rebuilt the temple in Jerusalem twice, the Jesus is going to come back.

Seriously.

How do you feel this came into play, say, between Forrestal and Truman? How about for the issues of dual containment and ILSA mentioned above?
 
LarryDan43
2011-12-05 09:55:13 AM
Moleva?
 
Party Boy [TotalFark]
2011-12-05 09:57:08 AM
Marcus Aurelius: Here's the link.

What specific law and or policy has this group managed to pass.

When answering, be sure to consider this [1] [2].
 
palelizard
2011-12-05 09:57:41 AM
Is Iran the 4th largest oil producer the way Iraq had the 4th largest army?
 
deadcrickets
2011-12-05 09:58:17 AM
Party Boy: Lets be clear.


That you didn't bother to source:

Link
 
Party Boy [TotalFark]
2011-12-05 10:00:06 AM
deadcrickets: That you didn't bother to source:

Party Boy: I posted this last night

Click that link. Review comments. Find source.
 
Party Boy [TotalFark]
2011-12-05 10:03:54 AM
deadcrickets: Party Boy: Lets be clear.


That you didn't bother to source:

Link

as in, specifically, its at 2011-12-04 08:53:02 PM . Theres more in that linked thread as well.
 
deadcrickets
2011-12-05 10:10:42 AM
Party Boy: deadcrickets: Party Boy: Lets be clear.


That you didn't bother to source:

Link

as in, specifically, its at 2011-12-04 08:53:02 PM . Theres more in that linked thread as well.

Also be advised that Fair Use only allows for one paragraph even with source. Secondly, the source must be viewable on every use.
 
Lando Lincoln [TotalFark]
2011-12-05 10:12:04 AM
Imagine what the world would be like if we didn't burn oil, and we could let the religious savages in the Middle East blow the ever-living shiat out of each other and we could all just go on with our lives.
 
palelizard
2011-12-05 10:18:52 AM
Lando Lincoln: Imagine what the world would be like if we didn't burn oil, and we could let the religious savages in the Middle East blow the ever-living shiat out of each other and we could all just go on with our lives.

You know, it's not like the savages are needed to get the oil. If they can't get their act together enough to allow us easy access to their mineral wealth, as a final solution, we could probably just blow the shiat out of them once and for all, so long as we didn't half-ass it. We could tell them we were doing them each a favor. "Hey, Shi'ites, we took care of that Sunni problem for you." "Hey, Suffis, we took care of that Shi'ite problem for you." "Hey, Kurds, we took care of that Persian problem for you" etc.
 
Dr. Whoof
2011-12-05 10:23:22 AM
there their theyre: Party Boy: HotWingConspiracy: When did we try diplomacy?

I posted one example of that in the link above

On September 11,2001,America discovered that the real Islamic threat did not lay in ....large post that makes me sad

Why are we friends with Israel again? They do more harm than good to the US.

They make the best blintzes you ever tasted. And the knishes! Don't get me started...now I'm hungry...
 
Party Boy [TotalFark]
2011-12-05 10:24:35 AM
deadcrickets: Also be advised that Fair Use only allows for one paragraph even with source. Secondly, the source must be viewable on every use.

Well, at least you caught the citation.

Check this out

Wall Street Journal
Jun 18, 1996. pg. A24, 1 pgs
...snip..
The measure, which the House is expected to approve today with the Clinton administration's blessing, infuriates some of the U.S.'s closest European allies. Last week in an undiplomatic outburst, the European Union's top executive turned to President Clinton during a joint news conference to complain that it wasn't "justifiable or effective for one country to impose its tactics on another."

But for Aipac, known formally as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the measure isn't just a way to fight international terrorism. It offers the chance for a comeback of sorts, a badly needed way to burnish its own image. Aipac isn't a political-action committee; it is the chief U.S. lobbying group for Israel and is financed by private fund-raising in this country.

Aipac staffers insist that it is business as usual -- they are working on Capitol Hill to promote Israel's interests. But the group's interest in Iranian terrorism at least partly reflects a recent dilemma. Over the past few years, Israel's active pursuit of peace with its Arab neighbors and warm ties with Washington made Aipac's mission less clear. The group no longer needed to mobilize its troops to thwart U.S. arms sales to Arab states or vilify Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. Instead, American Jews were divided over issues such as the future of Jerusalem and the prospect of a Palestinian state.

"The consensus surrounding Israel has diminished and this, among other things, has reduced somewhat the centrality of Aipac in the American Jewish community," says Benjamin Ginsberg, a Johns Hopkins University professor who writes on American-Jewish politics.

Aipac's funk began in 1992 when Israeli voters elected the Labor Party's Yitzhak Rabin as prime minister, ending 15 years of dominance by the hard-line Likud bloc. On a visit here, Mr. Rabin met privately with Aipac's top leaders, many of whom are conservative and cozy with Likud. The new prime minister read them the riot act, gruffly telling Aipac officials that he would conduct foreign policy directly with the White House and that they should stay out of the way.

Shocked and searching for a way to remain relevant, Aipac hit upon the perfect vehicle -- Sen. Alfonse D'Amato. Since 1993, the New York Republican had been offering sweeping Iran sanctions bills. Despite the general animosity toward Tehran, the bills languished in Congress. Aipac recognized that all that was needed was an organized effort to refine the legislation and push it through. The lobbying group decided to become the locomotive.

When the Republicans took over Congress in early 1995 and Sen. D'Amato became chairman of the Banking Committee, the bill's fortunes -- and Aipac's -- were about to change. The administration regularly attacked Iran's support of international terrorism and urged its allies not to do business with Tehran. Then, thanks partly to an Aipac research paper shared with the White House, the administration learned to its embarrassment that U.S. oil companies were Iran's biggest customers by far.

In March of last year, to show its resolve, the White House intervened to stop Conoco Inc., the energy unit of DuPont Co., from going ahead with plans to help develop two Iranian oil fields. But casting the spotlight on Iran also gave Sen. D'Amato's bill momentum. Soon, the administration was conducting separate discussions with the senator's office and with Aipac.

Sen. D'Amato's bill focused on imposing U.S. penalties on foreign companies for trading with Iran. (The bill also includes sanctions against Libya, though Iran remains Aipac's principle focus.) But the administration, believing such a sweeping bill would violate international trade law, suggested another approach: it would punish foreign companies that in the future invested at least $40 million in Iran's energy sector, which is vital to its economy. The sanctions would include barring U.S. Export-Import Bank support on sales to those foreign companies and would ban such companies from receiving loans of more than $10 million from a U.S. financial institution. The administration hoped such an approach would be less offensive to America's allies. Aipac, recognizing the broader appeal of such a measure, signed on. So did Sen. D'Amato. The bill moved through the Senate with no opposition.

Next, Aipac prepared for a tougher fight in the House, where powerful interests traditionally oppose so-called secondary boycotts. In a world-wide campaign closely coordinated with Sen. D'Amato, Aipac and the New York Republican helped raise the stakes by publicizing pending business deals involving foreign firms and Iran.

In February of this year, for instance, the Australian Jewish Review published an article saying that Broken Hill Proprietary Co., Australia's largest company, was about to sign a $1 billion deal with Iran. A few days later, the Australian Financial Review's Washington correspondent wrote a similar report, including a letter to the firm by Sen. D'Amato. The company, under pressure, denied that such a deal was pending.

Meanwhile, the House International Relations Committee approved a bill that included certain trade sanctions and was tougher than Sen. D'Amato's measure. But GOP Rep. Bill Archer of Texas, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee that also has jurisdiction, strongly opposed trade sanctions.

With the two House committees at loggerheads, Aipac played the key role of go-between, sitting with Ways and Means staffers in the office of Thelma Askey, staff director of the panel's trade subcommittee, to try to resolve differences. In recent weeks, Aipac won support for a measure favored by the International Relations Committee that could lower the investment threshold to $20 million after a year if other nations don't agree to join the U.S. effort against Iran. But Aipac failed in efforts to extend sanctions to banks that finance energy deals in Iran. The Senate is expected to accept the House's version of the final bill.

Ironically, the recent election victory of Israel's hard-line Likud party, which is likely to stall peace talks, could create tensions between the U.S. and Israel -- and re-energize Aipac's basic mission. "If Clinton tries to put pressure on Israel," says Morris Amitay, a former executive director of Aipac, "he'll find that Aipac will be working with a lot of people in Congress, particularly the Republican majority, who will be happy to take on the White House."


Clinton Bars U.S. Oil Pacts With Iran;Executive Order Blocks Conoco Production Deal
Washington Post Mar 15, 1995 pg. A.01

President Clinton yesterday decided to ban American companies from producing oil in Iran, thus blocking Houston-based Conoco Inc.'s deal to develop two of that country's Persian Gulf oil fields.

The White House and Conoco said the company agreed to terminate its contract with Iran if an executive order was issued. Edgar Bronfman Sr., a key member of the board of directors of DuPont Co., Conoco's parent company, also had lobbied vigorously on Capitol Hill against the deal.
...snip...

American companies are permitted to purchase Iranian oil -- indeed, they are believed to be the world's biggest purchasers of Iranian crude -- although they are forbidden by law to import it into the United States.

The Conoco deal would have been the first production agreement between a U.S. oil company and Iran since the fall of the shah in 1979. Oil industry analysts said Conoco's investment in the two Iranian oil and gas fields might have totaled as much as $1 billion.

Bronfman, his brother, Charles, and son, Edgar Jr., are top officers of Seagram Co., which owns 24.2 percent of DuPont. They met last week with half a dozen Capitol Hill leaders, according to Israel Singer, secretary general of the World Jewish Congress, who was present at the meetings.

Bronfman encouraged them to oppose the deal, telling Senate Majority Leader Robert J. Dole (R-Kan.), House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) and others that Iran is a "terrorist state."
...snip..

The collapse of the Conoco deal was bad news for other American oil firms, which have been eager to increase their business dealings with Iran. They were watching for the Clinton administration's reaction to the deal to see whether it would adhere to the hard line in force during the Republican White House years.

By killing the deal, the administration strengthened its position as it pursues a diplomatic effort with the European nations and Russia to cut their business with Iran.

Conoco's contract with Iran's National Iranian Oil Co., which was announced March 5, would have permitted it to install platforms and wells, and to pump oil and gas from two fields located just south of a small Iranian island in the Persian Gulf. At the time, the White House raised concerns but did not strongly condemn the action.

Under the agreement with Iran, Conoco's Dutch affiliate, Conoco Iran NV, would have installed the platforms and other equipment. As part of the deal, Conoco then would have bought the oil from the Iranians at favorable prices and resold it abroad.

The deal had raised the ire of Sen. Alfonse M. D'Amato (R-N.Y.), who has proposed banning all trade with Iran. McMurry, in an uncommon sympathetic word for a Republican, said the White House "understands the concerns" of the senator but had not decided on whether to support the legislation.

Edward Krapels, director of ESAI, a District-based research firm that focuses on energy markets, said Conoco "badly miscalculated" reaction to the Iran deal. By attracting so much negative publicity, Krapels said, Conoco angered other U.S. oil companies that had hoped to do more business with Iran.
...snip...

"Iran was clearly hoping to counter the D'Amato bill, but their move has backfired," said Kenneth Timmerman, publisher of Iran Brief, a newsletter in Kensington dealing with Iranian strategy and trade.

"This oil deal was particularly damaging to U.S. policy because it involved developing new oil field export capacity -- and Iran did not have to put up a penny," he said. "It would have meant Iran would have had more ready cash to support overseas terrorism and its expensive nuclear projects with Russia and China."
 
Dr. Whoof
2011-12-05 10:25:37 AM
Lando Lincoln: Imagine what the world would be like if we didn't burn oil, and we could let the religious savages in the Middle East blow the ever-living shiat out of each other and we could all just go on with our lives.

The day cold fusion becomes a sustainable, realistic energy source is the day nukes start flying in the Middle East.

Think about it...
 
Party Boy [TotalFark]
2011-12-05 10:26:04 AM
palelizard: You know, it's not like the savages are needed to get the oil.

What was the oil companies stance on US policy to Iran in the 1990's?
 
Displayed 50 of 68 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

Redisplay/refresh comments

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »