U.S. Foreign Policy

[Heracleum Persicum]

.


Guardian


Now the truth emerges:
how the US fuelled the rise of Isis in Syria and Iraq



.

[Heracleum Persicum]

.


‘ EU countries forced to work against their own interests to help US ’


'US drawing Europe into crusade against Russia, against our interests'
ex-French PM


.

[Heracleum Persicum]

.



Washington’s Great Game and
Why It’s Failing


.

[Heracleum Persicum]

.


Rapprochement
or Just
Wishful Thinking


a good read to educate one self what's ahead

.

[Heracleum Persicum]

.


Russia, China decrypt codes of Snowden’s files

.

"huge strategic setback" for the West.

A Downing Street source said Moscow and Beijing had "cracked" information that exposed intelligence-gathering techniques and could identify individual spies.

"It is the case that Russians and Chinese have information," the source told the Sunday Times.

"It has meant agents have had to be moved and that knowledge of how we operate has stopped us getting vital information."

.

.

[YMix]

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/w42j6 ... or-pussies

Donald Rumsfeld denies he thought democracy in Iraq was 'realistic' goal
Former defense secretary who led US into 2003 invasion contradicted past assertions in support of ‘model’ government in Times of London interview

Donald Rumsfeld, the secretary of defense who led the United States into the Iraq war, has told an interviewer that he did not think, at the time of the 2003 invasion, that building a democracy in Iraq was a realistic goal.

The statement contradicts speeches and memos that Rumsfeld, now 82, personally issued before and after the invasion of Iraq.

“The idea that we could fashion a democracy in Iraq seemed to me unrealistic,” Rumsfeld told the Times of London. “I was concerned about it when I first heard those words … I’m not one who thinks that our particular template of democracy is appropriate for other countries at every moment of their histories.”

The audience for Rumsfeld’s speech at the Council on Foreign Relations in May 2003, two months after the invasion, heard the opposite message. “This much is clear: we have a stake in their success,” Rumsfeld said then, referring to the people of Iraq.

“For if Iraq – with its size, capabilities, resources and its history – is able to move to the path of representative democracy, however bumpy the road, then the impact in the region and the world could be dramatic. Iraq could conceivably become a model – proof that a moderate Muslim state can succeed in the battle against extremism taking place in the Muslim world today.”

Rumsfeld also held up the prospect of Iraq as a “model” democracy behind the scenes. As a co-signatory of the statement of principles of the Project for a New American Century thinktank, Rumsfeld urged Bill Clinton to topple Saddam Hussein and called on the US to “accept responsibility for America’s unique role in preserving and extending an international order”. The statement is widely identified as a germ of what became known as the neoconservative theory of “democratic dominoes” in the Middle East.

Throughout the early Bush years, key Rumsfeld lieutenants were top purveyors of the dominoes theory. Paul Wolfowitz, a fellow member of the Project of the New American Century who served as deputy defense secretary in Rumsfeld’s Pentagon, predicted that Iraq would become the “first Arab democracy” that would “cast a very large shadow, starting with Syria and Iran, across the whole Arab world”.

George W Bush, under whom Rumsfeld served as defense secretary for six years, had scathing words in his 2004 state of the union address for anyone who doubted the project of Iraqi democracy. “We also hear doubts that democracy is a realistic goal for the greater Middle East, where freedom is rare,” Bush said.

“Yet it is mistaken and condescending to assume that whole cultures and great religions are incompatible with liberty and self-government. I believe that God has planted in every human heart the desire to live in freedom. And even when that desire is crushed by tyranny for decades, it will rise again.”

Recent months have seen an outbreak of former Iraq war apologists seeking to re-enter the public debate over Middle East policy. Other architects of the war, such as Wolfowitz and former national security adviser Stephen Hadley, have reportedly become foreign policy advisers to Jeb Bush, the younger brother of the former president and prospective 2016 presidential candidate.

Statements by Republican candidates in the 2016 presidential race indicate that the history of the Iraq war, and how it was lost, will be up for debate, especially with a Bush in the race. At his presidential announcement last week, former Texas governor Rick Perry called the withdrawal from Iraq “a national disgrace” and argued that the US had “won” the war in 2009 only to see the Obama administration squander its victory by leaving.

Rumsfeld’s Times interview also appeared to contradict earlier comments on military power in the Middle East.

In a July 2001 memo to then national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Rumsfeld wrote: “Within a few years the US will undoubtedly have to confront a Saddam armed with nuclear weapons. Iran will almost certainly have a nuclear weapon sometime within the next five years, and that will change the balance in the region notably.”

In the Times interview, Rumsfeld said the US was in a “war of ideas”.

“You begin to look at this thing not like a war, but more like the cold war,” Rumsfeld said. “You’re not going to win this with bullets, you’re in a competition of ideas.”

Someone shoot this durian.

[Heracleum Persicum]

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/w42j6 ... or-pussies

Donald Rumsfeld denies he thought democracy in Iraq was 'realistic' goal
Former defense secretary who led US into 2003 invasion contradicted past assertions in support of ‘model’ government in Times of London interview

Donald Rumsfeld, the secretary of defense who led the United States into the Iraq war, has told an interviewer that he did not think, at the time of the 2003 invasion, that building a democracy in Iraq was a realistic goal.

The statement contradicts speeches and memos that Rumsfeld, now 82, personally issued before and after the invasion of Iraq.

“The idea that we could fashion a democracy in Iraq seemed to me unrealistic,” Rumsfeld told the Times of London. “I was concerned about it when I first heard those words … I’m not one who thinks that our particular template of democracy is appropriate for other countries at every moment of their histories.”

The audience for Rumsfeld’s speech at the Council on Foreign Relations in May 2003, two months after the invasion, heard the opposite message. “This much is clear: we have a stake in their success,” Rumsfeld said then, referring to the people of Iraq.

“For if Iraq – with its size, capabilities, resources and its history – is able to move to the path of representative democracy, however bumpy the road, then the impact in the region and the world could be dramatic. Iraq could conceivably become a model – proof that a moderate Muslim state can succeed in the battle against extremism taking place in the Muslim world today.”

Rumsfeld also held up the prospect of Iraq as a “model” democracy behind the scenes. As a co-signatory of the statement of principles of the Project for a New American Century thinktank, Rumsfeld urged Bill Clinton to topple Saddam Hussein and called on the US to “accept responsibility for America’s unique role in preserving and extending an international order”. The statement is widely identified as a germ of what became known as the neoconservative theory of “democratic dominoes” in the Middle East.

Throughout the early Bush years, key Rumsfeld lieutenants were top purveyors of the dominoes theory. Paul Wolfowitz, a fellow member of the Project of the New American Century who served as deputy defense secretary in Rumsfeld’s Pentagon, predicted that Iraq would become the “first Arab democracy” that would “cast a very large shadow, starting with Syria and Iran, across the whole Arab world”.

George W Bush, under whom Rumsfeld served as defense secretary for six years, had scathing words in his 2004 state of the union address for anyone who doubted the project of Iraqi democracy. “We also hear doubts that democracy is a realistic goal for the greater Middle East, where freedom is rare,” Bush said.

“Yet it is mistaken and condescending to assume that whole cultures and great religions are incompatible with liberty and self-government. I believe that God has planted in every human heart the desire to live in freedom. And even when that desire is crushed by tyranny for decades, it will rise again.”

Recent months have seen an outbreak of former Iraq war apologists seeking to re-enter the public debate over Middle East policy. Other architects of the war, such as Wolfowitz and former national security adviser Stephen Hadley, have reportedly become foreign policy advisers to Jeb Bush, the younger brother of the former president and prospective 2016 presidential candidate.

Statements by Republican candidates in the 2016 presidential race indicate that the history of the Iraq war, and how it was lost, will be up for debate, especially with a Bush in the race. At his presidential announcement last week, former Texas governor Rick Perry called the withdrawal from Iraq “a national disgrace” and argued that the US had “won” the war in 2009 only to see the Obama administration squander its victory by leaving.

Rumsfeld’s Times interview also appeared to contradict earlier comments on military power in the Middle East.

In a July 2001 memo to then national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Rumsfeld wrote: “Within a few years the US will undoubtedly have to confront a Saddam armed with nuclear weapons. Iran will almost certainly have a nuclear weapon sometime within the next five years, and that will change the balance in the region notably.”

In the Times interview, Rumsfeld said the US was in a “war of ideas”.

“You begin to look at this thing not like a war, but more like the cold war,” Rumsfeld said. “You’re not going to win this with bullets, you’re in a competition of ideas.”

Someone shoot this durian.

.

What puzzles me is why Joe falls into these cones .. culprit not Rumsfeld, but Joe


.

[Heracleum Persicum]

.


Pentagon seeks repeal of Russian rocket ban

The Pentagon has officially said it would face “significant challenges” to ensuring military and intelligence access to space if Congress doesn’t loosen restrictions on the use of Russian rocket engines ..

.

[Heracleum Persicum]

.


The ‘ House of Trouble ’

.

..

.. 35% of Saudi workers are now unemployed. An unemployed work force at home doesn’t seem to bother the country’s ruling elite. However, the kingdom is certainly taking “steps” to channel the problem in a desired direction. More than two-thirds of Saudi nationals are under the age of 30 and almost three-quarters of all unemployed Saudis are in their 20s. More than anything else, it is this younger demographic that poses the most serious challenge to the ruling elite. It is also this younger group which the kingdom hopes to “employ” in its so-called fight against Yemen.

The crisis in Yemen is, as such, as much related to the House of Saud’s quest to consolidate its position vis-à-vis Iran as to resolving, by misdirection, many domestic problems. For instance, by employing the unemployed youth, the kingdom aims to achieve two major objectives: 1) it will have enough boots on the ground to sustain a long (proxy) fight, 2) it will have the local youth’s attention diverted from the issue of radically restructuring the Saudi polity.

But Yemen crisis has led to an unexpected problem: the prospect of a Shia uprising in Saudi Arabia itself. Unemployed youth in Saudi Arabia, which are a potential target for military recruitment, mostly come from “loyal tribes.” The Shia tribes are considered to be “disloyal.” Saudi rulers are making things worse by mobilizing their loyal youths to fight in Yemen in the name of eliminating “the Shia heretics.”

The harping on a ‘Shia element’ is creating a deep sense of vulnerability among the local Shia population who are inclined to believe that the recent attacks on Shia Mosques in Saudi Arabia were not orchestrated by the ISIS. Many instead believe that the attacks were actually carried out by Saudi security agencies in order to keep the local Shia population under existential pressure. This realization among the local Shia population, which has since long been pushed to the wall within the kingdom, can have some serious consequences.

Shia resentment is deeply rooted in the injustices of the Saudi political system itself. The Yemen crisis is only giving it a new outlet. As a matter of fact, people professing Shia creed in Saudi Arabia are actually living under an “apartheid” regime.

Not only do they face discrimination, they are also forced to attend schools segregated on sectarian grounds. Even in these schools, they are not allowed to have a principal in charge from their own creed. As a matter of fact, the Shia community in Saudi Arabia is forbidden by law to work in other than manual labor jobs. The core reason(s) for this discrimination however, aren’t merely sectarian. Economic factors also influence such policies. It is ironic that the Shia population, which is forced to live in extremely wretched conditions, actually resides in areas extremely rich in oil reserves. This is why the Saudi authorities confine them to manual labor jobs related to petroleum extraction. Hence, officials see no reason to offer them opportunities for higher education. On the other hand, the recent economic crunch has also stirred a sense of dissent among the Shia workers in the oil fields. These already low-paid workers are also seeing their wages and hours cut due to the oil price drop.

Any form of opposition to such policies are not tolerated by Saudi officials. The recent case of Shia leader Ayatollah Nimr al-Nimr’s and his possible execution has created a lot of controversy in Saudi Arabia and other Muslim states. Clerics protesting in the Iranian city of Qom said that Saudi Arabia will pay a heavy price if it executes the religious leader, warning the execution could trigger “an earthquake” that would lead to the downfall of the Al Saud dynasty. A Saudi court in October 2014 had sentenced Nimr to death after convicting the anti-government protest leader of “sedition.” Nimr, a driving force behind the 2011 protests against Saudi Arabia’s Sunni authorities, was also convicted of abetting “foreign meddling” in the country — a reference to Iran. The court also found Nimr guilty of “disobeying” the kingdom’s rulers and taking up arms against security forces. However, Nimur’s real “crime” is that al-Nimr led the 2011 insurrection after the Arab Spring came to Saudi Arabia. He led Shia Muslim street protests throughout the country, demanding constitutional changes, liberties and an end to anti-Shia discrimination in the kingdom.

Jawad Fayruz, a Bahraini MP in the UK, was reported to have said “there’s no independent judiciary system in Saudi Arabia” and the case of Sheikh al-Nimr is “politically oriented.” This is especially due to the ongoing war in Yemen, where Shia Houthi rebels overthrew the president, a Saudi Arabian protégé. However, this invasion has, instead of reducing Saudia’s problems, created a whole new nest of problems, with the Saudi army representing more of a problem than a solution.

The Saudi army, which is the the ruling clique’s primary resource in settling all challenges to its rule is, in fact, itself a problem . The Saudi Army is mostly made up of “guest workers” who are either hired as mercenaries or, in many cases, made up of individuals who have been forcibly conscripted into the nation’s military. As thousands of Bangladeshis, Nepalis and other nationalities, wearing Saudi uniforms are deployed along Yemeni border, preparing for a possible invasion, reports are surfacing of mass defections.

It appears that many of the super-exploited and impoverished non-Saudi guest workers have no desire to fight on behalf of their masters. As such, if the Saudi military orders a ground invasion of Yemen, it could see its military fall to pieces. If this happens, who will the House of Saud have at its disposal to rely on? This is the most critical issue that currently confronts the ruling elite. Although the Saudi military has the fourth largest budget in the entire world, it doesn’t seem to have the capacity to wage an effective ground campaign in Yemen due to such internal weaknesses. Coupled with this is growing instability among the population of the kingdom’s oil-rich Shia regions which could soon boil over into a full-blown domestic crisis for the Saudi regime.

.

You pretty much safe kissin GoodBye Al Saud .. finito


.

[Heracleum Persicum]

1e2eff1d-accf-4a3c-bb59-2e10267e61b8.jpg (20.33 KiB) Viewed 1130 times

“How human garbage works … Delete plus fake apology. Clearly found the racist joke funny enough to share. Trash,” another user wrote.

Zionist mocking American foreign policy


.

[Simple Minded]

1e2eff1d-accf-4a3c-bb59-2e10267e61b8.jpg

“How human garbage works … Delete plus fake apology. Clearly found the racist joke funny enough to share. Trash,” another user wrote.

Zionist mocking American foreign policy


.

Mocking American foreign policy is a big tent club, there is room for everyone!

HP,

Thanks for posting! I'll bet the commentary was of equal caliber.

Humans, they're all like that!

We need to take the "human" out of "humanitarianism," then we really have something.

[Heracleum Persicum]

.


“The end result of this needless bullying by the United States will hasten the one thing Washington fears the most :
a world monetary system in which the US has no say and the dollar is relegated to playing second fiddle,”


.

[Heracleum Persicum]

.


“ I think that ISIS is somewhat successful because it doesn't face a coherent coordinated effort to destroy it. Technically speaking they are not strong. Some 30,000 - 40,000 people. Their vehicle is a Toyota pickup and some machine gun on it ”


qN-UfkLGVNY


.

[Heracleum Persicum]

.


University of Maryland
Iranian Public Opinion on the Nuclear Negotiations

.

http://www.lobelog.com/poll-iranian-pub ... -politics/



1. Iran’s Nuclear Program

Overwhelming majorities of Iranians continue to say that it is very important for Iran to have a nuclear program. The nuclear program is seen as one of Iran’s greatest achievements. A large majority continues to see the program as driven purely by peaceful goals, though one in five see it as being an effort to pursue nuclear weapons. This support for Iran’s nuclear program appears to be driven by a combination of symbolic and economic considerations. However, while a majority sees the program as being an important way for Iran to stand up to the West, serving Iran’s future energy and medical needs is seen as more important.


2. Views on Nuclear Weapons

A large and growing majority of Iranians express opposition to nuclear weapons in various ways. Two thirds now say that producing nuclear weapons is contrary to Islam. Eight in ten approve of the NPT goal of eliminating nuclear weapons and establishing a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East. Consistent with these views, Iranians express opposition to chemical weapons, with nine in ten approving of Iran’s decision, during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, to not use chemical weapons in response to Iraq’s use of them.


3. Iran – P5+1 Nuclear Deal

Given information about the nuclear deal being negotiated between Iran and the P5+1, a substantial majority favors it and only one in six oppose it. A quarter, though, are undecided or equivocal. Nearly three in four are optimistic that Iran and the P5+1 will arrive at a deal in regard to Iran’s nuclear program. Three in four think the Majlis (Iran’s Parliament) should have a say on a nuclear deal.


4. The Potential Removal of Sanctions

The support for Iran pursuing a deal with the P5+1 appears to rest to some extent on the assumption—held by a large majority—that all sanctions on Iran would be lifted as part of the deal, and there is optimism that the sanctions would in fact be lifted. Approximately half of respondents say Iran should not agree to a deal unless the U.S. lifts all of its sanctions, while nearly as many say Iran should be ready to make a deal even if the U.S. retains some sanctions, provided all UN and EU sanctions are lifted. Among those who believe that all U.S. sanctions would be lifted, support for a deal is nearly two thirds, while among those who assume that the U.S. will retain some sanctions, support is a bare majority. The removal of UN sanctions is seen as more important than the removal of U.S. sanctions.


5. Expectations About Positive Effects of a Deal

Iranians express high expectations that a nuclear deal would result in significant positive effects in the near term. Majorities say they would expect to see, within a year, better access to foreign medicines and medical equipment, significantly more foreign investment, and tangible improvement in living standards.


6. The Sanctions and Iran’s Economy

The sanctions on Iran are overwhelmingly perceived as having a negative impact on the country’s economy and on the lives of ordinary people. However, views of the economy are fairly sanguine and have been improving. Also, the impact of the sanctions is seen as limited and a lesser factor affecting the economy as compared to domestic mismanagement and corruption.


7. Views of Rouhani

As Iran’s parliamentary elections near, Iran’s President Rouhani is clearly one of the strongest political figures in Iran. Half would prefer to see Rouhani supporters win in the February 2016 parliamentary elections, while one quarter favors his critics. However, Rouhani supporters have high expectations that a deal removing all U.S. sanctions and bringing rapid economic change is going to take place. If a deal is reached that does not meet these expectations, Rouhani could be left politically vulnerable.

In a hypothetical presidential match-up, Rouhani currently does better than former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by two to one. Large majorities say Rouhani has been at least somewhat successful in improving the economic situation, improving Iran’s relations with European countries, and reducing sanctions. Three in four Iranians say that if the negotiations were to fail to produce a final agreement, they would only or mostly blame the P5+1 countries.


8. Relations with the U.S.

Views of the United States, especially the U.S. government, continue to be quite negative. Only four in ten believe that U.S. leaders genuinely believe that Iran is trying to acquire nuclear weapons. Asked why the U.S. is imposing sanctions on Iran, the most common answers portray the U.S. as seeking to confront and dominate Iran; very few mention concerns about nuclear weapons. However, a slight majority has a positive view of the American people.
If Iran and the P5+1 reach a deal, a large majority believes that the U.S. will still impede other countries from cooperating with Iran, and a slight majority believes that Iran making concessions on the nuclear issue will likely lead the U.S. to seek more concessions. Just one in six believe that concessions would be likely to lead to greater accommodation; however, this number is higher than a year ago.

Large majorities favor various confidence-building measures between Iran and the U.S., including greater trade, which is more widely supported than a year ago. People-to-people confidence-building measures are especially popular. A majority thinks that it is possible for Islam and the West to find common ground.


9. Views of P5+1 Countries

Two thirds say they do not trust the P5+1 countries—however, the minority expressing trust has increased since fall 2014. Views of specific countries vary: large majorities have negative views of the UK and the U.S.; modest majorities have unfavorable views of Russia and France, while views are divided on Germany and China.


10. Views of Regional Actors

A very large majority has an unfavorable view of Saudi Arabia—even slightly more negative than views of the U.S. A slight majority now has an unfavorable view of Turkey, which was not the case a year ago. Large majorities continue to view Syria and Iraq favorably.

.

.

[Nonc Hilaire]

HP, Iran has thermonuclear weapons. Why else would Israel attack everybody else but just hand Iran wolf tickets?

[Heracleum Persicum]

.

HP, Iran has thermonuclear weapons. Why else would Israel attack everybody else but just hand Iran wolf tickets ?

.

Iran has no thermonuclear weapons .. and .. Israel has "zero" reason to attack Iran

.

[Nonc Hilaire]

.

HP, Iran has thermonuclear weapons. Why else would Israel attack everybody else but just hand Iran wolf tickets ?

.

Iran has no thermonuclear weapons .. and .. Israel has "zero" reason to attack Iran

.

By the same criteria, Israel has no thermonuclear weapons either.

[Heracleum Persicum]

.

HP, Iran has thermonuclear weapons. Why else would Israel attack everybody else but just hand Iran wolf tickets ?

.

Iran has no thermonuclear weapons .. and .. Israel has "zero" reason to attack Iran

.

By the same criteria, Israel has no thermonuclear weapons either.

.

Doesn't make any different

Vietnam had no thermonuclear weapons, America had thousands

and ? ?

How many thermonuclear weapons had USSR ? ?

and ? ?

South Africa ? ?

and ? ?

Israel same story

.

[Nonc Hilaire]

.

HP, Iran has thermonuclear weapons. Why else would Israel attack everybody else but just hand Iran wolf tickets ?

.

Iran has no thermonuclear weapons .. and .. Israel has "zero" reason to attack Iran

.

By the same criteria, Israel has no thermonuclear weapons either.

.

Doesn't make any different

Vietnam had no thermonuclear weapons, America had thousands

and ? ?

How many thermonuclear weapons had USSR ? ?

and ? ?

South Africa ? ?

and ? ?

Israel same story

.

Yup. Iran already has thermonuclear weapons. No problem. Just keeps Israel in check.

[Heracleum Persicum]

.

HP, Iran has thermonuclear weapons. Why else would Israel attack everybody else but just hand Iran wolf tickets ?

.

Iran has no thermonuclear weapons .. and .. Israel has "zero" reason to attack Iran

.

By the same criteria, Israel has no thermonuclear weapons either.

.

Doesn't make any different

Vietnam had no thermonuclear weapons, America had thousands

and ? ?

How many thermonuclear weapons had USSR ? ?

and ? ?

South Africa ? ?

and ? ?

Israel same story

.

Yup. Iran already has thermonuclear weapons. No problem. Just keeps Israel in check.

.

noddy, seems I not gettin my point through .. what I'm getting at is thermonuclear weapons does not guaranty anything for a country .. If the "fundamentals" are wrong, sooner or later things will "revert" to fundamentals.

Apartheid SA or USSR fell due to shaky fundamentals .. Israel probably will follow due to same reason .. guys from Latvia and Estonia and Ukraine and Poland and Russia and and, thinking they same nation just because they supposedly believing in Judaism (in reality neither believing nor practicing Judaism) constitute no "sound" fundamentals to last .. a nation, to endure the "harsh" UPS & DOWNS of history, must be based on rock-solid fundamentals, that law of nature.

Persia, being Persia last 5000 yrs despite overrun by Macedonians and Arabs and Tchingiz-Khan and Truks and Brits and and, should make clear to any "doubter" fundamentals rock solid

.

[Heracleum Persicum]

.


" Police killings of African-Americans during law enforcement have practically become
'normal' in the US "


Not having gay carnival in Beijing or Tehran is lack of human rights .. but shooting black teenager holding up both hands 36 times in back and in head on regular basis (weekly event) is no violation of human rights

Water flowing uphill

.

Lu Kang, spokesman for the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said at a daily briefing Friday that Washington failed to conduct dialogues on human rights on the basis of mutual respects and equality.

"Therefore, we would like to make some comments about what happens in the U.S. as well, as the principle of fairness," Lu said. "It may also be regarded as an equal action."

.

Mr. Perfect, you have the mike


.

[Nonc Hilaire]

.

HP, Iran has thermonuclear weapons. Why else would Israel attack everybody else but just hand Iran wolf tickets ?

.

Iran has no thermonuclear weapons .. and .. Israel has "zero" reason to attack Iran

.

By the same criteria, Israel has no thermonuclear weapons either.

.

Doesn't make any different

Vietnam had no thermonuclear weapons, America had thousands

and ? ?

How many thermonuclear weapons had USSR ? ?

and ? ?

South Africa ? ?

and ? ?

Israel same story

.

Yup. Iran already has thermonuclear weapons. No problem. Just keeps Israel in check.

.

noddy, seems I not gettin my point through .. what I'm getting at is thermonuclear weapons does not guaranty anything for a country .. If the "fundamentals" are wrong, sooner or later things will "revert" to fundamentals.

Apartheid SA or USSR fell due to shaky fundamentals .. Israel probably will follow due to same reason .. guys from Latvia and Estonia and Ukraine and Poland and Russia and and, thinking they same nation just because they supposedly believing in Judaism (in reality neither believing nor practicing Judaism) constitute no "sound" fundamentals to last .. a nation, to endure the "harsh" UPS & DOWNS of history, must be based on rock-solid fundamentals, that law of nature.

Persia, being Persia last 5000 yrs despite overrun by Macedonians and Arabs and Tchingiz-Khan and Truks and Brits and and, should make clear to any "doubter" fundamentals rock solid

.

Who does not have thermonuclear weapons? Iraq. Afghanistan. Syria. Eqypt. Yemen. Libya. Bosnia. Ukraine. Palestine. No big bombs and you get puppetted by US advisors, a new central bank and your gold is stolen. If you have big bombs, you get Kerry to come over and give you a hand job. Fundamentals in 2015. No need to think back to the bronze age.

[Heracleum Persicum]

.

HP, Iran has thermonuclear weapons. Why else would Israel attack everybody else but just hand Iran wolf tickets?

NH , did you read my above post re : University of Maryland
Iranian Public Opinion on the Nuclear Negotiations

.

1. Iran’s Nuclear Program

Overwhelming majorities of Iranians continue to say that it is very important for Iran to have a nuclear program. The nuclear program is seen as one of Iran’s greatest achievements. A large majority continues to see the program as driven purely by peaceful goals, though one in five see it as being an effort to pursue nuclear weapons. This support for Iran’s nuclear program appears to be driven by a combination of symbolic and economic considerations. However, while a majority sees the program as being an important way for Iran to stand up to the West, serving Iran’s future energy and medical needs is seen as more important.


2. Views on Nuclear Weapons

A large and growing majority of Iranians express opposition to nuclear weapons in various ways. Two thirds now say that producing nuclear weapons is contrary to Islam. Eight in ten approve of the NPT goal of eliminating nuclear weapons and establishing a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East. Consistent with these views, Iranians express opposition to chemical weapons, with nine in ten approving of Iran’s decision, during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, to not use chemical weapons in response to Iraq’s use of them.


4. The Potential Removal of Sanctions

The support for Iran pursuing a deal with the P5+1 appears to rest to some extent on the assumption—held by a large majority—that all sanctions on Iran would be lifted as part of the deal, and there is optimism that the sanctions would in fact be lifted. Approximately half of respondents say Iran should not agree to a deal unless the U.S. lifts all of its sanctions, while nearly as many say Iran should be ready to make a deal even if the U.S. retains some sanctions, provided all UN and EU sanctions are lifted. Among those who believe that all U.S. sanctions would be lifted, support for a deal is nearly two thirds, while among those who assume that the U.S. will retain some sanctions, support is a bare majority. The removal of UN sanctions is seen as more important than the removal of U.S. sanctions.


6. The Sanctions and Iran’s Economy

The sanctions on Iran are overwhelmingly perceived as having a negative impact on the country’s economy and on the lives of ordinary people. However, views of the economy are fairly sanguine and have been improving. Also, the impact of the sanctions is seen as limited and a lesser factor affecting the economy as compared to domestic mismanagement and corruption.


8. Relations with the U.S.

Views of the United States, especially the U.S. government, continue to be quite negative. Only four in ten believe that U.S. leaders genuinely believe that Iran is trying to acquire nuclear weapons. Asked why the U.S. is imposing sanctions on Iran, the most common answers portray the U.S. as seeking to confront and dominate Iran; very few mention concerns about nuclear weapons. However, a slight majority has a positive view of the American people.

If Iran and the P5+1 reach a deal, a large majority believes that the U.S. will still impede other countries from cooperating with Iran, and a slight majority believes that Iran making concessions on the nuclear issue will likely lead the U.S. to seek more concessions. Just one in six believe that concessions would be likely to lead to greater accommodation; however, this number is higher than a year ago.


10. Views of Regional Actors

A very large majority has an unfavorable view of Saudi Arabia—even slightly more negative than views of the U.S. A slight majority now has an unfavorable view of Turkey, which was not the case a year ago. Large majorities continue to view Syria and Iraq favorably.

.

Well, NH, this a poll by University or Maryland .. and .. have to say, IMO, quite accurate

This reminds one of West, America, antagonism with China B4 Nixon stunt


.

[Heracleum Persicum]

qDRdvyLBwO8







.

[Heracleum Persicum]

.


http://rt.com/op-edge/270118-baku-games-european-sochi/

" Our independent foreign policy is not to everyone’s liking. That is why we see an increased pressure on us, with new mechanisms of diverting us from our path set in action. Certain foreign circles are in fact leading an open campaign against Azerbaijan. But we are ready for this campaign… This campaign was visible in 2012 when Baku hosted the Eurovision contest, now our foes are quite disturbed by the European Games in Baku... This is an anti-Azerbaijani campaign, steered from one or few foreign centers. Its aim is to throw dirt at our country, presenting Azerbaijan as a backward, undemocratic, unfree country. All of this campaign is built on lies, of course ”

.