# Iran discussion



## Salt USMC (Jun 19, 2016)

This is a thread for discussing Iranian news and issues.







*SUPREME LEADER*: Ali Khamenei

In office since 1989.  Currently 76 years old, and rumored to have prostate cancer.  He is not as much of a firebrand as Khomeini, his predecessor, but he is known to consciously pit one governmental group against another in order to prevent either from gaining too much power.  Ultimately, the supreme leader wields all of the power within the Iranian government.





*PRESIDEN*T: Hassan Rouhani

Elected by a large majority in 2013.  A career politician, Rouhani has held positions at nearly every level of government, including the Expediency Council, Assembly of Experts, and senior leadership positions within the Army.  He is not necessarily considered a “reformer” as much as, say, Mirhossein Mousavi (another popular candidate during the 2013 election), but he is quite notably a centrist and his election victory was seen as a rebuke of Ahmadinejad-era policies.  His principle focuses are long-term economic development, and improving Iran’s relations abroad.  Most notably, his administration presided over the negotiations and implementation of the JCPOA (a.k.a. the “Nuclear Deal”).  He has been criticized by his supporters for being notably silent on various human rights issues.





*GUARDIAN COUNCIL*, Chief Justice: Ahmad Jannati.

The Guardian Council, in short, functions as rough equivalent to the US Supreme Court.  It interprets and determines whether legislative measures from Parliament are not only constitutional, but also Shariah-compliant.  It also approves nominations to the parliament, Assembly of Experts (more on that next), and oversees the Presidential election.  It is made up of 12 members who serve six-year appointments Six members are experts in Islamic jurisprudence, and are appointed by the Supreme Leader.  The other six are law experts, are appointed by the Head of the Judiciary.

The current Chief Justice, Ahmad Jannati, is the longest-serving justice on the council.  He is an old-school conservative, and one of the major obstacles to reform in Iran.


*ASSEMBLY OF EXPERTS*, Speaker: Ahmad Jannati.

The Assembly has a rather unique function within the government, in that it is tasked with advising the Supreme Leader in legal matters, overseeing the activities of the Supreme Leader, and dismissing him if they determine him to be unfit of performing his duties.  The Supreme Leader is also elected from the 88-member consultative body of the Assembly, which is one of the reasons why it is such an important body.  Elections occur every eight years, and during every election cycle hundreds of candidates apply to run for the Assembly.  Most are denied by the Guardian Council on the basis of “Insufficient Islamic credentials.”  The term of the most recent Assembly was extended to 10 years (2008 to 2016) in order to land on the same year as elections for Parliament.

Controversy erupted in the latest election cycle when the grandson of Ayatollah Khomeini, Hassan Khomeini, was disqualified from running for the Assembly of Experts on the grounds of his Islamic credentials.  Khomeini currently teaches at the most prestigious seminary in Qom and is known as a strident reformer, so his disqualification was seen by many as a blatant power play by conservatives to prevent a reformer from being consideration for the position.





*Iran Consultative Assembly*, or *Parliament*, Speaker: Ali Larijani

The Parliament effectively functions like the US House of Representatives.  It is tasked with the construction and passing of national laws.  One interesting feature of Parliament is that it has 5 constitutionally-mandated seats for religious and ethnic minorities: two for Armenians, and one each for Assyrians, Zoroastrians, and Jews.  Like the Assembly of Experts, candidates are qualified or disqualified by the Guardian Council, though the requirements for Parliament are not as stringent.  Members of Parliament serve four year terms, and there are no term limits.  In the most recent Parliamentary elections, over 12,000 candidates applied for Parliamentary candidacy, but only about half were approved prior to the election.  In the 2016 election, reformist won a plurality of seats, marking the first time since the Islamic revolution that conservatives had not been the driving force in Parliament.

The current Speaker, Ali Larijani, is a former academic and straddles the line between conservative and reformer.  He is the current head of the “Followers of Velayat” party, whom are considered principalists, but are also part of a larger reformist coalition called “List of Hope”, which currently controls the majority of seats within Parliament.

----------------------------------------------

Good info and news sources about Iran:

Iran Primer (Start here) - The Iran Primer

Majlis Monitor, a great in-depth look at the most recent Parliament and Assembly of Experts election – Majlis Monitor

Al-Monitor, a good general news source for Iran – Iran Pulse


----------



## Salt USMC (Jun 19, 2016)

The reformist coalition deserves its own post, so I'll let Majlis Monitor handle this one

*Spotlight on Political Currents: The Reformists*



> The reformists are among the Islamic Republic of Iran’s most important political currents. They burst onto the political stage in 1997 with Mohammad Khatami’s landslide presidential election victory and 2000 parliamentary election sweep, were pushed out of Iran’s elected centres of power by 2005, and found themselves completely outside of mainstream politics following their leadership of the Green Movement demonstrations in 2009. Although their popularity is thought to have facilitated Hassan Rouhani’s 2013 presidential election win, their systematic disqualification from national elections by the Council of Guardians and continued suppression by security forces is likely to mean they will not form a powerful bloc in this year’s Islamic Consultative Assembly (or parliamentary) elections.
> 
> *Origins*
> 
> ...


----------



## Salt USMC (Jul 15, 2016)

The JCPOA just had its first birthday this month, but Iranians are not as jubilant about it today as they were in those first few weeks.

New poll underlines Iranian disappointment with US, nuclear deal


> A year after their government signed a landmark nuclear agreement, many Iranians are disappointed by lackluster economic progress, doubt that the United States will fulfill its part of the bargain and are more favorably disposed toward a controversial former president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a new poll shows.
> 
> 
> The survey of 1,007 Iranians — conducted by telephone from June 17-27 by IranPoll.com, an independent Toronto-based firm, for the University of Maryland — confirms anecdotal information that Iranians had overly high expectations for the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and failed to appreciate the obstacles Iran would still face in attracting foreign investment, reconnecting with foreign banks and increasing employment.
> ...



Rouhani is up for re-election next year, and is likely to use the success of the JCPOA as one of the planks of his campaign.  However, the above-mentioned dissatisfaction with the deal could torpedo his candidacy.  As of now, he has no serious contenders for the election.

5 reasons Rouhani may not win second term


> TEHRAN, Iran — As the faction most opposed to the government, Iran's hard-liners have made it their goal to make Hassan Rouhani the first Iranian president not to be re-elected for a second term. In fact, this objective was sought since their loss of the executive branch back in 2013. They simply cannot fathom being barred from the presidency for another five years until the 2021 presidential election. Thus, they're determined to seize back control of the executive branch as soon as possible. Their latest move, the war over pay stubs, is considered to be in this line.
> 
> As has been the case with previous Iranian presidents, Rouhani's political fortunes are hard to predict. Numerous members of the ruling elite believe that he will be serving a second term. For instance, Speaker Ali Larijani, a Principlist, has emphasized that Rouhani is "on the whole moving in the right direction," adding that "some people believe Dr. Rouhani will serve for only one term. I would say 'no' since I don't think that is very likely." Meanwhile, former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani believes that "given Rouhani’s popularity and his performance with the [conclusion] of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action [JCPOA], he is without a serious rival in the 2017 presidential election."


----------



## AWP (Jul 15, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> The JCPOA just had its first birthday this month, but Iranians are not as jubilant about it today as they were in those first few weeks.



I can spell Iran and find it on a map. We've now exhausted most of my knowledge on the topic.

If there are moderates, enough to win an election, then why is the country still a bunch of d-bags? The military and mullahs hold the real power and moderates are kept around for show? Figureheads?


----------



## Florida173 (Jul 15, 2016)

There was the green party movement. There was high hopes for them


----------



## Single Malt (Jul 18, 2016)

The green movement leaders are in house arrest currently and indefinitely. Even Khatemi, who was the president for 8 years before Ahmedinezhad is banned from public forums. The Supreme Leader's followers are pretty good at oppressing any opinion that isn't in line with theirs specially in the long run. Usually he allows for something to go on for a short amount of time to give the illusion that he is for semi-free speech and political oppositions but in the end, the progressive are imprisoned.


----------



## Salt USMC (Aug 3, 2016)

In January of this year, the Obama administration reportedly paid $400 million (as part of a $1.7 billion settlement) to Iran around the time that four American hostages were released.  Just to clear up confusion, these hostages were civilian Americans, not the Sailors that were captured a week or two earlier.

Report: US airlifted $400 million to Iran as detained Americans were released | Fox News


> The U.S. government airlifted the equivalent of $400 million to Iran this past January, which occurred as four detained Americans were released by Tehran, the Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday.
> 
> The cash transfer was the first installment paid in a $1.7 billion settlement the Obama administration reached with Iran to resolve a failed 1979 arms deal dating from just before the Iranian Revolution.
> 
> ...



It's pretty hard to see a positive in this.  I mean, we did need to pay out the $1.7B settlement eventually if we still want to pretend we care about international law and order and such.  It's really hard to buy that statement about the payment not being linked to the hostage negotiations, although the WSJ version of the article (which I didn't link because it's behind a paywall) had a slightly longer version of the quote by John Kirby:

“As we’ve made clear, the negotiations over the settlement of an outstanding claim…were completely separate from the discussions about returning our American citizens home,” State Department spokesman John Kirby said. “Not only were the two negotiations separate, they were conducted by different teams on each side, including, in the case of The Hague claims, by technical experts involved in these negotiations for many years.”

While I'm sure that the negotiations were conducted separately, it would be asinine to assume that the negotiating teams weren't talking to each other and at least doing a small amount of coordination.  The Iranians wanted to see some cash to make sure the Americans were going to deal seriously.  I suppose one small positive to take away from this is that the Iranians didn't immediately turn around and blast this to their domestic media since they got concessions from Big Bad America.  Also, if you're like me and want to see a normalization of relations between around the US, it's a small positive as it shows that both countries are willing to deal in good faith.  However, this is a pretty boneheaded way to demonstrate that.  

It also appears that the payment demand was likely not related to the incident with the detained sailors and the IRGC Navy, which occurred a little less than a week prior to the settlement of this hostage issue.  Initially, the negotiations focused on a 1-for-1 prisoner swap; the detained Americans being traded for jailed Iranian nationals as well.  It was around Christmas that the arms settlement became involved in the negotiations.  There's a paragraph in the WSJ article that addresses this:

U.S. Sent Cash to Iran as Americans Were Freed


> The U.S. delegation was led by a special State Department envoy, Brett McGurk, and included representatives from the Central Intelligence Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation, according to U.S. and European officials. The Iranian team was largely staffed by members of its domestic spy service, according to U.S. officials.
> 
> The discussions, held at the InterContinental Hotel, *initially focused solely on a formula whereby Iran would swap the Americans detained in Tehran for Iranian nationals held in U.S. jails, U.S. officials said. But around Christmas, the discussions dovetailed with the arbitration in The Hague concerning the old arms deal.*
> 
> The Iranians were demanding the return of $400 million the Shah’s regime deposited into a Pentagon trust fund in 1979 to purchase U.S. fighter jets, U.S. officials said. They also wanted billions of dollars as interest accrued since then.



I'm curious as to why that item would suddenly be included in the negotiations.  Even though Iran was going to have parliamentary elections about a month after this deal was finalized, it appears as though Iranian lawmakers were not especially involved in these negotiations.  Likewise, Rouhani is not up for re-election until next year, so it's a little early to begin scoring political points.


----------



## Brill (Aug 3, 2016)

My calendar says Aug so why is this released now?


----------



## Salt USMC (Aug 3, 2016)

lindy said:


> My calendar says Aug so why is this released now?


One of my buddies informed me that it was actually reported on back in January, but didn't have the exact details about $400 million in currency.  That bit is new.
U.S. Payment of $1.7 Billion to Iran Raises Questions of Ransom <---From Jan. 21


----------



## Brill (Aug 3, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> One of my buddies informed me that it was actually reported on back in January, but didn't have the exact details about $400 million in currency.  That bit is new.
> U.S. Payment of $1.7 Billion to Iran Raises Questions of Ransom <---From Jan. 21



I guess it's the association of the money and the hostages.   I did read that some USPs successfully sued Iran for terrorism and were awarded $400 mil...which ended up being paid by taxpayer dollars.

Regardless, foreign press outlets (Russia, Iran, Isreal, etc) are having a field day with this.


----------



## Gunz (Aug 4, 2016)

The detainees were probably leveraged to help close the settlement. The administration is no stranger to poor trades having freed 5 TB terrorists for an American deserter.

I wonder what we'd have to give up to get Robert Levinson back?


----------



## Salt USMC (Aug 5, 2016)

Yeah, it's definitely (I hate myself for using this phrase) "bad optics"


----------



## CQB (Aug 5, 2016)

I'm bipartisan on this and just throwing it out there as I'm curious to what you think; does anyone think that this general arrangement with Iran is similar to Nixon opening China? It's not completely identical, I know but it opens up the country at a time when its' regional power is growing.


----------



## Brill (Aug 5, 2016)

CQB said:


> I'm bipartisan on this and just throwing it out there as I'm curious to what you think; does anyone think that this general arrangement with Iran is similar to Nixon opening China? It's not completely identical, I know but it opens up the country at a time when its' regional power is growing.



His Admin has yet to demonstrate that high level strategic thinker about international affairs. It sure seems that his primary concern has long been what history books will write about his Presidency. He wants "wins" at any cost.

Health care, immigration, war against terror, cyber crap with China and Russia, Iran, etc.


----------



## Gunz (Aug 5, 2016)

CQB said:


> I'm bipartisan on this and just throwing it out there as I'm curious to what you think; does anyone think that this general arrangement with Iran is similar to Nixon opening China? It's not completely identical, I know but it opens up the country at a time when its' regional power is growing.




I agree with @lindy. I don't think there's much comparison to be made between Obama/Kerry and Nixon/Kissinger in the astuteness-in-foreign-affairs department. For all his faults, Nixon was a master in that field. The current administration by contrast, rather than riding the horse seems to be grabbing at the tail as it flies by and trying to make the most out of it. They seem almost naive in an art that requires a devious finesse and chess-game strategy. Putin, the Iranians, the Chinese and god knows who else will only take advantage of this.


----------



## CQB (Aug 5, 2016)

Thanks for your replies, I was thinking more geopolitics and longer term, not so much comparing presidencial styles. As a buttress to Russia in the region it makes sense to have someone as an allie, even a tentative one and where that leads to will be interesting.


----------



## Brill (Aug 5, 2016)

CQB said:


> Thanks for your replies, I was thinking more geopolitics and longer term, not so much comparing presidencial styles. As a buttress to Russia in the region it makes sense to have someone as an allie, even a tentative one and where that leads to will be interesting.



Honestly, I wonder how much Israel is able to influence our stance towards Iran. From their standpoint, I'm sure they feel surrounded by US-friendly governments: Azerbaijan, Iraq, Afghanistan. I wonder how close Iran wants to get?


----------



## Salt USMC (Aug 5, 2016)

CQB said:


> Thanks for your replies, I was thinking more geopolitics and longer term, not so much comparing presidencial styles. As a buttress to Russia in the region it makes sense to have someone as an allie, even a tentative one and where that leads to will be interesting.


As nice as that would be, Iran has already cast their lot with Russia and China.  To the former, they've made significant arms deals, including the long-delayed purchase of S-300 ballistic missiles (which were delivered only recently).  I would suspect that there's probably a degree of intelligence sharing going on between the two as well.  To the latter, they've signed a little over a dozen economic and trade deals, including a pretty sizable deal for a modern railroad system.  Granted, they've signed deals with a bunch of regional partners (as well as Venezuela for some strange reason), but Iran has clearly identified who they want their dance partner to be as they re-enter the world stage.  

Could that change?  It's possible, but it would first require significant political and cultural shifts within both Iran and the United States.  The US was a historical ally of Iran, and Czarist Russia (and later the USSR) was an enemy, so it's strange to see the switch there.  Hell, Iran and Israel were the best of buddies prior to the revolution!


----------



## CQB (Aug 10, 2016)

Interesting regarding your last point, as Sadat switched sides. but that is a sideshow compared with the main thrust of your post. There is a projected navy exercise in the South China Sea which combine the Sino-Russian navies. I was idly speculating that the US could engage China more intensively and come to a bilateral arrangement as has been mooted here by Hugh White, a strategic thinker. But it looks like the Chinese have other ideas.


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 10, 2016)

CQB said:


> I'm bipartisan on this and just throwing it out there as I'm curious to what you think; does anyone think that this general arrangement with Iran is similar to Nixon opening China? It's not completely identical, I know but it opens up the country at a time when its' regional power is growing.



Nixon was also leveraging China against Russia (USSR).  
This also allowed us to start talking with Russia on other issues.



Deathy McDeath said:


> As nice as that would be, Iran has already cast their lot with Russia and China.  To the former, they've made significant arms deals, including the long-delayed purchase of S-300 ballistic missiles (which were delivered only recently).  I would suspect that there's probably a degree of intelligence sharing going on between the two as well.  To the latter, they've signed a little over a dozen economic and trade deals, including a pretty sizable deal for a modern railroad system.  Granted, they've signed deals with a bunch of regional partners (as well as Venezuela for some strange reason), but Iran has clearly identified who they want their dance partner to be as they re-enter the world stage.
> 
> Could that change?  It's possible, but it would first require significant political and cultural shifts within both Iran and the United States.  The US was a historical ally of Iran, and Czarist Russia (and later the USSR) was an enemy, so it's strange to see the switch there.  Hell, Iran and Israel were the best of buddies prior to the revolution!



Interesting that we are considered a greater threat than a Communist (i.e. godless ) country (China) or countries that are actively at war with islam (Russia and China).  
One benefit is the Israelis will be able to provide a lot of good intel on modern Russian/Chinese systems.


----------



## Gunz (Aug 10, 2016)

Iran's got cash flow now that the nuke deal's been signed and sanctions have been eased. But UN Resolution 2231 stipulates that Iran has to have approval from the Security Council before embarking on any shopping sprees for arms. That gives the US veto power (provided the prospective deal is overt) but how effective it might be remains to be seen.

In terms of the Nixon initiative, I don't see a comparison with regard to the prospective "fertility of the objective," that is how open is Iran to US influence vice China's position some 40 odd years ago. The Russians and Chinese are very much involved in Iran and a chance to "open it up" may rest with somebody else.

And sorry @CQB for misunderstanding your question above.


----------



## CQB (Aug 10, 2016)

All good, no problem. I guess my question has been answered.


----------



## CQB (Aug 15, 2016)

ETA: so Turkey & Russia are smoozing & with Russia making overtures to Iran, there looks to be the realisation of a long held principle of Russian expansion; a warm water port. (Pick one near the Persian Gulf). The reach to Pakistan was IMO too hard to complete, and frustrated by Zia al Huq, though this time around there may be success. Looks like they're there for the long haul.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Aug 15, 2016)

CQB said:


> ETA: so Turkey & Russia are smoozing & with Russia making overtures to Iran, there looks to be the realisation of a long held principle of Russian expansion; a warm water port. (Pick one near the Persian Gulf). The reach to Pakistan was IMO too hard to complete, and frustrated by Zia al Huq, though this time around there may be success. Looks like they're there for the long haul.



It is beginning to feel like the old Soviet Stalin, and post Stalin thinking that was the Cold War. Their military is building, and Putin has an eye to expanding turf. He does not see the current POTUS as a threat, and pretty much behaves as if obama is a non person. An alliance with the Turks seems like a win-win, so why not. There is nothing in Europe to challenge Putin, and there is the vacuum left after the UK pull out.

Do we still have access to Russian Nukes, in keeping with reduction in Nuke stores?

My $.02.


----------



## Salt USMC (Aug 17, 2016)

Speaking of Russian cooperation with Iran...

Iran acknowledges Russia using its air base to strike Syria


> TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — A prominent Iranian lawmaker confirmed Wednesday that Russia is using an Iranian air base for airstrikes in Syria, as Moscow said another wave of airstrikes launched from the Islamic Republic struck the east of the war-ravaged country.
> 
> The comments by Alaeddin Boroujerdi, the head of the Iranian parliament's national security and foreign policy committee, are the first official acknowledgment that Russian planes are flying out of Iran's Shahid Nojeh Air Base.
> 
> ...



I'm sure that this comes as no surprise to people in the defense community.  After all, ATC radar would have undoubtedly picked these guys up over Iraqi airspace.  Still, it's more than a little disquieting to see this kind of cooperation between Russia and Iran.  To be fair, it's not exactly like Russia has an established military base inside of Iran (and I sincerely doubt that anti-colonial Iran would even consider allowing that), but allowing Russian use of their air bases shows that Rouhani is pretty good buds with Putin.

I'm curious to see if this military cooperation will end if or when Syria stabilizes.  Russia seems like it's trying to maintain operations in Syria without expanding its footprint in the region, which seems like it could only be accomplished by establishing a permanent presence in Syria (such as we did in OIF) or doing flights out of Iran.  That may change in the near future if Turkey jumps over to the Russian side.

EDIT: Interestingly, American Enterprise Institute seems to have spotted Russian aircraft at the Shahid Nojeh base back in November The Russo-Iranian Military Coalition in Syria may be Deepening  | Critical Threats


----------



## Gunz (Aug 17, 2016)

Iran's got a hodge-podge of aging aircraft from various countries and it wants very badly to keep up a capable force. The inventory scale is decidedly weighted in Russia's favor. Iran has Su-24s, Mig 29s, Mi-17s from Russia; J-10's, Y-12's and Chengdu F-7s from China. (They also have a bunch of old F4s, but they won't get shit from us.) So they need Russia for new parts and planes and I suspect the use of Iranian air bases by Russian aircraft is closely tied to this deal.


----------



## Brill (Aug 18, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Yeah, it's definitely (I hate myself for using this phrase) "bad optics"



I think you mean a direct lie to the American people. No biggie; we ain't seen nothing yet.  Seriously though, I just wish our government would give us some credit.

DOS has admitted payment was on condition of release of the captive USPs.

State Department Spox Confirms U.S. Sent Money To Iran After Hostages Were Released

*Full Definition of ransom*

1:  a consideration paid or demanded for the release of someone or something from captivity

Definition of RANSOM


----------



## Florida173 (Aug 18, 2016)

> (a)
> Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any demand or request for a ransom or reward for the release of any kidnapped person, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.



18 U.S. Code § 875 - Interstate communications



> (a)
> Whoever receives, possesses, or disposes of any money or other property, or any portion thereof, which has at any time been delivered as ransom or reward in connection with a violation of section 1201 of this title, knowing the same to be money or property which has been at any time delivered as such ransom or reward, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both


18 U.S. Code § 1202 - Ransom money


----------



## Brill (Aug 19, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> 18 U.S. Code § 875 - Interstate communications
> 
> 
> 18 U.S. Code § 1202 - Ransom money



That's only for serfs.


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 19, 2016)

lindy said:


> I think you mean a direct lie to the American people. No biggie; we ain't seen nothing yet.  Seriously though, I just wish our government would give us some credit.
> 
> DOS has admitted payment was on condition of release of the captive USPs.
> 
> ...


Iran-Contra all over again.


----------



## Brill (Aug 19, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Iran-Contra all over again.



No, that was those evil Republicans enriching their rich partners in the weapons industry while bypassing Congress.

This is an instance of peace loving people returning our patriots by simply returning Iran's rightful money to the owner (I wonder what legal right a country has to previous treaties, property, monies, etc when it's government is overthrown via revolution).


----------



## Brill (Aug 26, 2016)

I thought the US policy was to buy our friendship with Iran.

If Hollywood made an Iranian anti-US revenge fantasy
If Hollywood made an Iranian anti-US revenge fantasy - BBC News


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Aug 26, 2016)

Our issues with Iran run pretty deep, but what's going to force us into WW3 is the currency issue. More specifically, the USD remaining the world reserve currency and even more to the point, keep countries selling and buying oil in USD's.

Iran Says No Thanks To Dollars; Demands Euro Payment For Oil Sales | Zero Hedge

Do you know why we invaded Iraq and took out Saddam? He stated in 2000, that he would no longer take USD as payment and Eruo.Guess what we did as soon as we took over the country? Started selling Iraqi oil in USD again.

Foreign Exchange: Saddam Turns His Back on Greenbacks

Libya, and getting rid of Gaddafi? Gaddafi wanted an African gold backed currency to compete with the USD & ERUO.

Hillary Emails Reveal True Motive for Libya Intervention | Foreign Policy Journal

WTF is going on with Syria? It's called the Iran-Iraq-Syria oil pipeline. With all Obama's red lines and shit.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-secret-stupid-saudi-us-deal-on-syria/5410130

Remember Venezuela being and the Axis of Evil list?

Chavez Launches War Against US Dollar | The Daily Bell

Shit heating up with Russia, looking like some shit could go down? Putin always claiming that he needs to protect Russians economic intrest.

De-Dollarization Accelerates As Russia Nears Launch Of Ruble-Priced Oil Trading Platform | Zero Hedge

China? Yeah they actually want to be the next world reserve currency...

China Is Laying The Foundation For The Next World Gold Standard System

Russia and China? Yeah they have an alliance now.

Goodbye Petrodollar: Russia Accepts Yuan, Is Now China's Biggest Oil Partner

Bottom line, we all need to get our financial situation straight and hope and pray we kick the shit out of Russia, China, and Iran without going all nuclear...


----------



## AWP (Aug 26, 2016)

I think one aspect to our foreign policy which lags behind the rest of the world is the long game. We're left with being reactionary while other nations can afford to plan and wait. It gives them the initiative.


----------



## Brill (Aug 27, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> I think one aspect to our foreign policy which lags behind the rest of the world is the long game. We're left with being reactionary while other nations can afford to plan and wait. It gives them the initiative.



A clear indication of an absence of strategy (IS, Iran, Russia, China). At least our front 9 game is improving.


----------



## Etype (Aug 27, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> I think one aspect to our foreign policy which lags behind the rest of the world is the long game. We're left with being reactionary while other nations can afford to plan and wait. It gives them the initiative.


Iran has been working to master their long game since '79. IRGC agents leave Iran for extended periods of time, maybe indefinitely- plotting, waiting, calculating.

Iran is also smart when it comes to Islamic in-fighting, they are staunchly against it- unless they think the other side is working towards a Western end. This is why they are working to prop up Assad, they think the high profile activity of Nusra and ISIS only brings unwanted US attention. 

They fancy themselves as masters at operating just below the threshold of violence- which is key for the long game.


----------



## Gunz (Aug 27, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> I think one aspect to our foreign policy which lags behind the rest of the world is the long game. We're left with being reactionary while other nations can afford to plan and wait. It gives them the initiative.




I don't give the last three presidential administrations and their respective Secretaries of State a whole lot of credit as shrewd chess players in the great game. While our adversaries are thinking four and five moves ahead, we're trying to pin the tail on the donkey.


----------



## Etype (Aug 27, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> I don't give the last three presidential administrations and their respective Secretaries of State a whole lot of credit as shrewd chess players in the great game. While our adversaries are thinking four and five moves ahead, we're trying to pin the tail on the donkey.


With a presidential term being 4 years, max time in office 8- the theme is usually to change as much as you can in that amount of time in case the other party takes power.

The ayatollahs plan on staying in power indefinitely.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Aug 27, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> I think one aspect to our foreign policy which lags behind the rest of the world is the long game. We're left with being reactionary while other nations can afford to plan and wait. It gives them the initiative.



That is one of the pitfalls of managers, leading the military-V- Leaders, leading the military. Managers like to live in quiet, smooth, and calm waters. Leaders use the waters as a tool.


----------



## Etype (Aug 27, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> All this talk like these guys are geniuses. The SECSTATES have to focus on a bout a 100 other fucking huge things besides Iran and whatever the fuck their "game" is. We are involved in everybody's shit. Right or wrong.


True, but if I were secretary of state (crazy, I know), Iran would be on the short list (top 5) of concerns.


----------



## Gunz (Aug 27, 2016)

Older societies tend to have the kind patience and long-term outlook that Americans often lack. The Chinese and Vietnamese, for example, think in terms of centuries, not years or decades. If they have to wait a hundred years for a diplomatic victory, it's not that big of a deal. They may not be around to enjoy it, but their descendants will. And that makes sense to them, it's logical.

We always want the quick fix, the magic bullet. And I think that's a big disadvantage when negotiating with people who think in terms of generations down the road.


----------



## AWP (Aug 27, 2016)

Iran made the whole "Axis of Evil" list (nice nod to the 1940's. Are we ever going to get past that?) and then had their nuke drama play out over three presidencies. Before that we had the Tanker wars and Iran's support for Hezbollah. Then before that we had something involving Lebanon and our embassy so yeah, no point in focusing on Iran and making it a Top 5 or even Top 3 on our list of priorities.


----------



## Etype (Aug 28, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Iran made the whole "Axis of Evil" list (nice nod to the 1940's. Are we ever going to get past that?) and then had their nuke drama play out over three presidencies. Before that we had the Tanker wars and Iran's support for Hezbollah. Then before that we had something involving Lebanon and our embassy so yeah, no point in focusing on Iran and making it a Top 5 or even Top 3 on our list of priorities.


Iran is also responsible for the modern interpretation of martyrdom, particularly as it pertains to suicide bombing.

They are also calling for the unification of all islamist groups (particularly those fighting in Syria and Iraq) to fight against the west.

How dangerous are those two are ideas?


----------



## Brill (Aug 28, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> The SECSTATES have to focus on a bout a 100 other fucking huge things besides Iran and whatever the fuck their "game" is.



Which is why the different "desks" take the lead of heavy lifting and just advise the Secretary, who seeks guidance from POTUS for his orders.  If those 100 other things are important, then we should prioritize.

Chapter 3: State Sponsors of Terrorism Overview


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Aug 28, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> We do prioritize. We here on this board look at the things we see all the time as being the most important. Terrorism isn't the most important thing. Iran is not the most important thing. Those are small issues compared to dealing with China, an emerging Asian market. Russia and whatever they are playing at, general economic interests, all these things are more pressing daily l, monthly and yearly than Iran.



Yes and no, I think it's a bit hard to ignore Irans strategic importance to the region. 

The issue that I personally see is that we are the economic power house. We set markets and have the ability to control prices and or sanction other nations/states that don't play ball. We have that capability now, but we can lose it, and these little fires we keep stomping out are efforts to maintain our capabilites. 

The average American of today would have a mental fit if they understood how bad we been fucking the non-western world. You put a face of terrorism on it and say we are being attacked, and nobody is crying about a middle eastern man, African man, south American man, making $200 a month, living in a shack and piss in in a ditch. Well a few are, a few send their fifteen dollars a month, but they are still driving cars worth a decade of salary for these people, eating more calories in a day than these people get in a month, etc.

I wish we had some government leaders actually come forward and spell the world out as it is. "Yeah we have been fucking everyone, but if you want to keep living high on the hog, you have to deal with it or change it". Than watch how many assholes are cool with not being able to play on smartphones, eat fast food and ride in style. Can't wait to see Johnny and Suizy riding on top of a bus because the fair is cheaper...


Okay I'll stop.


----------



## Brill (Aug 28, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> We do prioritize. We here on this board look at the things we see all the time as being the most important. Terrorism isn't the most important thing. Iran is not the most important thing. Those are small issues compared to dealing with China, an emerging Asian market. Russia and whatever they are playing at, general economic interests, all these things are more pressing daily l, monthly and yearly than Iran.



I partially agree.

Remarks on the United States Foreign Policy Agenda for 2016


----------



## Salt USMC (Aug 28, 2016)

Etype said:


> Iran is also responsible for the modern interpretation of martyrdom, particularly as it pertains to suicide bombing.
> 
> They are also calling for the unification of all islamist groups (particularly those fighting in Syria and Iraq) to fight against the west.
> 
> How dangerous are those two are ideas?


Disagree, somewhat.

It's true that Khomeini wrote extensively on the virtues of _shahidat_, but in practice Shia martyrdom tends to look more like the romanticized version of a noble sacrifice.  Iranian martyrs, for example, don't blow themselves up, but rather go into absolutely hopeless fights with the promise of a glorious death awaiting them.  Now if you're talking about Hizballah, I can agree with that.  They definitely made suicide bombing _en vogue_ for a big part of the Middle East.  You could argue that Iran has exported the idea of suicide bombing with its theology, but that actually leads me into my next point -

Khomeini-ism (I'm calling it this because _velayat-e faqih_ is too unwieldy) is unlikely to be the dominant Islamist ideology in the future.  There are two reasons for this: the first is that even Shia theologians reject his interpretation of Shiism as being consistent with the Shariah.  This occurred both during his lifetime and after his death.  For instance, here is Grand Ayatollah Sistani's view on Khomeini-ism


> Question: What is Grand Ayatollah Sistani's opinion about Wilayat-e Faqih (governance of jurist)?
> Answer: Every jurisprudent (Faqih) has wilayah (guardianship) over non-litigious affairs. Non-litigious affairs are called "al-omour al-hesbiah". As for general affairs to which social order is linked, wilayah of a Faqih and enforcement of wilayah depend on certain conditions one of which is popularity of Faqih among majority of momeneen.


This is one of the reasons why Iran has not been able to export the revolution beyond Lebanon.

The second reason is that the Qutb-ist interpretation is much, much stronger these days.  Why would predominantly-Sunni groups adopt a Shia Islamist ideology when they have a perfectly good one in the writings of Qutb?  Or Hassan al-Banna?  Global jihadism already has precedents to look to, and realistically they don't include Khomeini.

This is a pretty good article on the topic that addresses both points: Why Are there no Iranian Suicide Bombers? Evolving Islamic Democracy Matters!
If you can get past the Islamic socialism stuff at the end, there's a lot to consider from it.


----------



## Etype (Aug 28, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> ...


The Basij had a very high rate of suicide attacks in the Iran-Iraq War, in both the human wave variety and suicide bomb flavor.

As far as the encouragement of unity, it will never happen. Yet, Quds Force operatives still push it, and it filters down and out through Hizbollah channels as well.

ETA-
It may be anecdotal, I don't have the facts to back it up- but as far as I know and have heard from other sources; the Basij suicide attacks, mainly against Iraqi tanks at night, are the earliest examples of suicide bombing which would supposedly resort in some form of Islamic heaven.

This filtered down to Hizbollah and the Dawa Party.


----------



## Salt USMC (Aug 28, 2016)

Etype said:


> The Basij had a very high rate of suicide attacks in the Iran-Iraq War, in both the human wave variety and suicide bomb flavor.
> 
> As far as the encouragement of unity, it will never happen. Yet, Quds Force operatives still push it, and it filters down and out through Hizbollah channels as well.
> 
> ...


Interesting.  I had never heard of this.  Most sources talk about the Basij being armed only with their clothes and a little plastic key around their neck.  It definitely sounds plausible, though it doesn't sound like it was widely practiced.


----------



## Etype (Aug 28, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Interesting.  I had never heard of this.  Most sources talk about the Basij being armed only with their clothes and a little plastic key around their neck.  It definitely sounds plausible, though it doesn't sound like it was widely practiced.


I've heard it from old Ba'ath Party members who were part of the SIB in Iraq, and in the book "A Time to Betray."

If you haven't read it, it's definitely worth it. It follows a guy from his childhood his childhood, through the revolution all the way to the late 80s when he left the country. He was member of the IRGC and did everything from attend the overrunning of the US Embassy, to serving on the front in the war with Iraq, to clandestine activities in London and Dubai- all the while serving as a CIA agent. There are also some pretty detailed accounts of his two visits to Evin Prison- pretty demented stuff.


----------



## Single Malt (Aug 29, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Interesting.  I had never heard of this.  Most sources talk about the Basij being armed only with their clothes and a little plastic key around their neck.  It definitely sounds plausible, though it doesn't sound like it was widely practiced.


@Etype is very correct here, here is the most glorified story of the Iran-Iraq war for young Iranians:
Mohammad Hossein Fahmideh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## ThunderHorse (May 5, 2018)

Uh, if true, need to skewer these folks Argentinian President Claims Former Obama Official Asked The Country To Provide Iran With Nuclear Fuel


----------



## Chopstick (May 5, 2018)

Can anyone explain to me how John Kerry's actions are not a violation of the Logan act? 

Kerry making quiet play to save Iran deal with foreign leaders: report



> Former Secretary of State John Kerry has fielded dozens of private meetings and phone calls in recent months in an effort to preserve the Iran nuclear deal, as President Trump appears poised to withdraw from the pact.
> The Boston Globe reported on Friday that Kerry, who helped broker the 2015 nuclear agreement, met with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif at the United Nations in New York last month to discuss ways to salvage the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) — the formal name for the Iran deal.
> He has also met and spoken with a handful of European officials. Last month, he met with German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier, according to the Globe, and spoke by phone with Federica Mogherini, the European Union's top foreign affairs official.


----------



## ThunderHorse (May 5, 2018)

Chopstick said:


> Can anyone explain to me how John Kerry's actions are not a violation of the Logan act?
> 
> Kerry making quiet play to save Iran deal with foreign leaders: report



Yeah, I don't get it Kerry quietly seeking to salvage Iran deal he helped craft - The Boston Globe



> The Logan Act prohibits US citizens from having private correspondence with a foreign government “with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government . . . in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States.”
> 
> Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas, said the law is a red herring — since it’s never been used to prosecute anyone — and almost certainly would not apply to anything Kerry is doing.
> 
> “The act only applies to conduct that is designed to ‘defeat the measures of the United States’ or influence the conduct of foreign governments,” Vladeck said. “If all Kerry is doing is working to keep in place something that’s still technically a ‘measure of the United States,’ I don’t see how the statute would apply even if someone was crazy enough to try it.”


----------



## R.Caerbannog (May 6, 2018)

So Flynn gets thrown under the bus for 'russian collusion', while Kerry gets to walk away with trying to make a deal with the Iranians... seems legit.


----------



## Gunz (May 7, 2018)

Chopstick said:


> Can anyone explain to me how John Kerry's actions are not a violation of the Logan act?
> 
> Kerry making quiet play to save Iran deal with foreign leaders: report



John "Reporting for Duty" Kerry has his eyes on the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020. This is all about getting his mug on TV and in the papers etc. Pathetic.


----------



## Salt USMC (May 7, 2018)

R.Caerbannog said:


> So Flynn gets thrown under the bus for 'russian collusion', while Kerry gets to walk away with trying to make a deal with the Iranians... seems legit.


Flynn was yoked up for, among other things, lobbying as an unregistered foreign agent, lying to federal investigators, and a few other charges.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (May 7, 2018)

Salt USMC said:


> Flynn was yoked up for, among other things, lobbying as an unregistered foreign agent, lying to federal investigators, and a few other charges.


Call me provincial, but isn't John Kerry holding unsanctioned talks over a nuclear agreement with the Iranians the same thing as lobbying as an unregistered foreign agent? 

As for Flynn, pretty sure he was burnt at the stake by Mueller and his anti-Trump Russian collusion witch hunt (which is funny considering the Clintons/Russian collusion).


----------



## Salt USMC (May 7, 2018)

R.Caerbannog said:


> Call me provincial, but isn't John Kerry holding unsanctioned talks over a nuclear agreement with the Iranians the same thing as lobbying as an unregistered foreign agent?
> 
> As for Flynn, pretty sure he was burnt at the stake by Mueller and his anti-Trump Russian collusion witch hunt (which is funny considering the Clintons/Russian collusion).


No, it is not.  For example, Flynn was paid over half a million dollars by the Turkish government, something he did not disclose until after he was fired, and blocked a military plan to arm the YPG and attack Raqqa.  That's significant because Turkey was very much opposed to those two things.  To wit, Flynn was literally bribed by a foreign government to slow or halt foreign policy decisions.  There was also a rumor that he was involved in a deal to extradite Fetiullah Gulen, but that hasn't been proven yet.  But that's all on top of the Russia stuff.

As to the "witch hunt" comment, I'll just say this:
-23 indictments
-5 guilty pleas


----------



## R.Caerbannog (May 8, 2018)

Salt USMC said:


> No, it is not.  For example, Flynn was paid over half a million dollars by the Turkish government, something he did not disclose until after he was fired, and blocked a military plan to arm the YPG and attack Raqqa.  That's significant because Turkey was very much opposed to those two things.  To wit, Flynn was literally bribed by a foreign government to slow or halt foreign policy decisions.  There was also a rumor that he was involved in a deal to extradite Fetiullah Gulen, but that hasn't been proven yet.  But that's all on top of the Russia stuff.
> 
> As to the "witch hunt" comment, I'll just say this:
> -23 indictments
> -5 guilty pleas


So does that mean that any of the cash that went into the Clinton foundation from foreign donors was all goodwill and didn't affect any business or policy dealings that were made when Hillary was the SecState, like Uranium One? 

My gripe is that whenever there is graft or wrongdoing in govt, the people affiliated with the Chicago political machine get kid glove treatment from the FBI and investigating/prosecuting officials. John Kerry acting as a private citizen to save the Iran deal (which is garbage) is another example of DNC's overreach and growing public discontent and animosity towards the DNC and their political shenanigans.


----------



## 757 (May 8, 2018)

I realize this is the thread for Iran but, since it was brought up again, Flynn's *only* sin was lying to the FBI. I keep bringing it up because it is a crucial component, and in the legal profession these details make or break cases.

Now, do Flynn's dealings overseas look potentially dubious? You bet! But a crime? Mueller's team didn't charge him with one, so I am inclined to believe it either: 1) doesn't exist or 2) cant be proved in a court of law.

"But if he isn't guilty, why did Flynn plead guilty?" I'm glad somebody asked. Alan Dershowitz argues, in another excellent article, "Flynn pleaded guilty to a highly questionable charge precisely because his son was threatened with prosecution." Is it possible that Flynn was fairly legally secure and merely decided not to fight this "dubious" charge based on his love for his son? I think that is a distinct possibility.

Furthermore, last time I checked, "collusion" wasn't a legal crime; therefore, I would also love to know what crime Mueller believes POTUS committed, and what evidence he currently has regarding said crime.

As much as I dislike to use sources that lean heavily right or left, I actually like this quote from The Weekly Standard with regard to the Logan Act.

"Let's talk about the Logan Act for a bit. Or rather, let's talk about why serious people don't talk about the Logan Act. The Logan Act is to national security laws about what phrenology is to medical science. Since its passage in 1799, no one's ever been convicted under the Logan Act, and just about every legal expert agrees it is wildly unconstitutional and runs counter to the First Amendment. George Logan, the senator whose actions motivated the passage of the law, was never even charged under it. Seriously, the only man charged under the law was a Kentucky farmer who wrote a newspaper article in 1803 about American territories allying with France—and even he was never prosecuted."

Kerry talking to foreign agents does not break any domestic or international law that I am aware of. Now that we have addressed that little tangent, back to Persia.


----------



## 757 (May 8, 2018)

Buckle up Gents! Looks like Trump is about to pull out of the Stormy Iranian Nuclear Deal.


----------



## Polar Bear (May 8, 2018)

I Ran was a great song by Flock of Seagulls


----------

