╌>

Trump hits Iran with new Sanctions

  
By:  Vic Eldred  •  5 years ago  •  75 comments


Trump hits Iran with new Sanctions
I am proposing hard hitting sanctions on Iran

Leave a comment to auto-join group We the People

We the People

Moments ago President Trump placed new sanctions on the number 1 sponsor of terrorism - Iran.  As he signed a new Executive Order, the President left open the door to negotiations. The President is driving up the pressure on the rogue state as Iran's economy is in a state of free-fall. 

Thus far:

Billions of dollars of assets of Iran's "Supreme Leader" will be locked up.

Three more senior Iranian leaders are now designated to fall under sanctions.


More details to follow





Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
 

Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  author  Vic Eldred    5 years ago

This is the beginning of the end for Iran's rogue regime

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
1.1  Ronin2  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    5 years ago

I hope you are correct; but I don't think sanctions alone will cause Iran to topple.

It will take a concerted effort involving Europe, Russia, and China with real sanctions by all parties to make Iran come to the table. Europe and Russia want Iranian oil and trade; and China is already defying Trump's threat of retaliatory sanctions against countries that buy Iranian oil.

The genie is already out of the bottle. All Iran has to do is hold until they achieve their nuclear breakout. Once they have the weapons Europe, Russia, and China will not have the will to take military action against them.  They will discourage the US from taking action as well.

Next up will be Egypt and Saudi Arabia. The only question is if we will force those countries to develop their own nuclear weapons program; or we give them nuclear weapons- like we have our NATO allies. At least that way we will have some oversight on their use.

Last thing the world needs is another India/Pakistan situation; but a nuclear Iran will cause a ME arms race that might be even more volatile. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1    5 years ago
but I don't think sanctions alone will cause Iran to topple.

You are right, sanctions are but one pillar of the current American policy.

It will take a concerted effort involving Europe, Russia, and China with real sanctions by all parties to make Iran come to the table. Europe and Russia want Iranian oil and trade; and China is already defying Trump's threat of retaliatory sanctions against countries that buy Iranian oil.

You can add our European allies to the problem. They have always been reluctant to apply sanctions. hey want Iran as a trading partner. We were fortunate to have them working with us prior to the Iran deal.

The genie is already out of the bottle. All Iran has to do is hold until they achieve their nuclear breakout.

Or until the democrats recapture the White House...Isn't that what the traitor Kerry advised them to do?

Once they have the weapons Europe, Russia, and China will not have the will to take military action against them.  They will discourage the US from taking action as well.

Have you forgotten about Israel? They will never stand for that!

Despite everything you cite plus the democrats obstruction, I think Trump will bring down the theocracy. It's only a matter of how and when.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
1.1.2  Split Personality  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1    5 years ago
I hope you are correct; but I don't think sanctions alone will cause Iran to topple.

There have been US sanctions against Iran since 1979 ( Jimmy Carter ) and there probably aren't any assets left outside of Iran to be frozen by anyone.

The US has $2 billion frozen and the UN & Europe have $98 to $120 Billion frozen overseas.

Sanctions & EO's just don't work.  Especially when Russia & China look the other way...

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
1.1.3  Split Personality  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.1    5 years ago
It's only a matter of how and when.

That's been true since 1979.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Split Personality @1.1.2    5 years ago

Lol, does that include when Obama was giving them pallets of cash?

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
1.1.5  Ronin2  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.1    5 years ago
Have you forgotten about Israel? They will never stand for that!

I haven't forgotten about Israel. Despite their vast military advantage the last thing they want is a war that could unite the ME. Iran might be hated; but are they more hated than Israel? They would have to launch a sustained military offensive to cripple Iran's nuclear capabilities. That would mean violating several countries borders/air space repeatedly, no matter which route they choose. It would require refueling in air over what could easily become hostile territory.

Unless Israel just decides to make Iran glow in the dark forever; which would bring about even more problems.

Despite everything you cite plus the democrats obstruction, I think Trump will bring down the theocracy. It's only a matter of how and when.

Again, I hope you are right. Getting a real deal done that allows UN inspectors anywhere/anytime access; and that hamstrings Iran's ability to sponsor/train terrorist/militias is an increasing necessity to head off what could be the start of a massive arms race. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.4    5 years ago

That debunked nonsense again?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.7  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Split Personality @1.1.3    5 years ago
That's been true since 1979.

Untrue.....Carter helped the revolution and Obama granted the regime hegemony status in the middle east.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
1.1.8  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.4    5 years ago

Vic,

That never happened, and I am not Obama's biggest fan.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.9  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.6    5 years ago
That debunked nonsense again?

Your turn......How has that been debunked?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.10  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.8    5 years ago

What never happened?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
1.1.11  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.10    5 years ago

Obama giving them a pile of cash.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.12  Tessylo  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.11    5 years ago

Yet people make that claim over and over and over and over and over again.  It's tiresome.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.13  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.11    5 years ago

"Washington (CNN)The Obama administration secretly arranged a plane delivery of  $400 million  in cash on the same day Iran released four American prisoners and formally implemented the nuclear deal, US officials confirmed Wednesday.

President Barack Obama approved the $400 million transfer, which he had announced in January as part of the Iran nuclear deal. The money was flown into Iran on wooden pallets stacked with Swiss francs, euros and other currencies as the first installment of a $1.7 billion settlement resolving claims at an international tribunal at The Hague over a failed arms deal under the time of the Shah."

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.14  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.13    5 years ago

I thought CNN was fake news according to the 'president'?

Also, President Obama did not give them anything that wasn't theirs to begin with.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.15  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.14    5 years ago

I used that one so it would be accepted - saving some time!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.16  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.1    5 years ago

'I think Trump will bring down the theocracy. It's only a matter of how and when.'  jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

Yeah, right.  According to the 'president' - I guess 'we'll see what happens'

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.17  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.14    5 years ago
Also, President Obama did not give them anything that wasn't theirs to begin with.  

I'm glad you added that line. If that money belonged to anyone, it belonged to the government of The Shah - A key US ally!

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
1.1.18  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.13    5 years ago

Vic,

That was to get people back. It wasn't just given to them as part of support package. And while I didn't agree with that, when he did it, what you are implying is that we gave Iran support, which is a totally different thing. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.19  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.11    5 years ago

According to the fact checking I have seen, funds were sent to Iranian accounts as part of negotiations between the US and Iran, including the "nuclear deal". 

The 1.7 or 1.8 billion was not the U.S 's to keep.  It was the accumulated sum, with interest, that accrued after a 1979 arms sale from the US to Iran (worth 400 million) was never completed due to the Iranian revolution.  The US was going to be ordered anyway to return the money to Iran by a world court and Obama thought he could use it as a negotiation chip. 

The money was Iran's, unless we wanted to steal it. They were given back their own money. 

What a non story that has become in conspiracy circles.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.20  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.18    5 years ago
we gave Iran support

We did. If Obama wasn't so interested in a deal, none of those payments would have been made. The Obama administration dealt with the rogue regime and ended up covered with it. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.21  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.20    5 years ago

It was Iran's money Vic. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.22  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.19    5 years ago
What a non story that has become in conspiracy circles.  

It's a non-story for the defenders of the Iran deal

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.23  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.22    5 years ago

What John said.  

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
1.1.24  Ronin2  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.11    5 years ago

Sorry, but even CNN says it is true.

he Obama administration secretly arranged a plane delivery of $400 million in cash on the same day Iran released four American prisoners and formally implemented the nuclear deal, US officials confirmed Wednesday.

President Barack Obama approved the $400 million transfer, which he had announced in January as part of the Iran nuclear deal. The money was flown into Iran on wooden pallets stacked with Swiss francs, euros and other currencies as the first installment of a $1.7 billion settlement resolving claims at an international tribunal at The Hague over a failed arms deal under the time of the Shah.
US officials said cash had to be flown in because existing US sanctions ban American dollars from being used in a transaction with Iran and because Iran could not access the global financial system due to international sanctions it was under at the time. The details of the how the transaction occurred were first reported by The Wall Street Journal . CNN reported in January that the transfer of funds had been arrangement.
The money was procured from central banks in Switzerland and the Netherlands, official said, and an unmarked cargo plane loaded with Swiss francs, euros and other currencies were flown to Iran.
"They were totally cut off from global banks and there was no other way to get them the money," one senior official with knowledge of the transaction said.
As does the WSJ.
As does CNBC
As does CBS
I don't really care if the cash was a payback for a fail arms deal, or part of it was for releasing hostages- which just happened to coincide with the payback. Giving a state sponsor of terrorism 1.7 billion is insane.

Kerry told CNBC’s Squawk Box  in January 2016 that Iran could spend the unfrozen assets however it wanted.

"I think that some of it will end up in the hands of the IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps) or of other entities, some of which are labeled terrorists," Kerry said. "To some degree, I’m not going to sit here and tell you that every component of that can be prevented."

The IRGC, as Iran’s premier security institution, fields an army, navy and air force and "presides over a vast power structure with influence over almost every aspect of Iranian life," according to the Council on Foreign Relations think tank. In 2007, the U.S. Treasury Department designated the IRGC’s elite Quds Force a terrorist supporter for aiding the Taliban and other terrorist organizations.

So, Kerry was saying some of the money ultimately would end up with organizations involved in terrorism.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.25  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.21    5 years ago

It was the money due the Shah's government. As you noted it had been held for decades. It would have been held longer if it were not for Obama's want of a deal.  You've made that case yourself.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.26  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.23    5 years ago
What John said.  

I know what John meant to say. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.27  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.26    5 years ago

I know what he said was the truth.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.28  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.27    5 years ago

That the payments were a non story for conspiracy theorists?

You think that's what John meant to say?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.29  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.25    5 years ago

Vic, could we just keep Russia, or China, or Englands money? Where do you get the idea we can keep Iran's money just because we dont agree with their politics?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.30  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.28    5 years ago

I don't speak for John.  You seem to be the one doing that.  

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.1.31  Ender  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.29    5 years ago

With the deal Obama made, we actually paid them less than we would have from the world courts.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
1.1.32  Split Personality  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.4    5 years ago

Still pushing debunked  stories?

We ( the US government ) agreed to a settlement at the world court, to end a 35 year old court case,

for keeping the Iranian's cash, not delivering the airplanes they bought, and later selling those same aircraft to someone else.

It was exponentially cheaper than having the World Court rule against the USA for both actual & punitive damages plus 30 years of interest.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.33  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.29    5 years ago
Where do you get the idea we can keep Iran's money just because we dont agree with their politics?

We have every right to hold an enemies money. They had no legal right to take over our embassy and hold American citizens hostage, did they?

They were responsible for the murder of the Marines in Lebanon, were they not?

They were responsible for the killing of American military personnel in Iraq, were they not?

They just shot down a Navy drone in international air space, did they not?

I guess you could say they were at war with us. So, yes John we had every right to hold onto the money paid to us by the Shah's government!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.34  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Split Personality @1.1.32    5 years ago

American Sovereignty should never bow to international organizations. As for the WC, those who like bad law should become public defenders.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.35  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.34    5 years ago

Thanks to this 'president' we no longer have any allies.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.36  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.35    5 years ago

There are dangerous forces everywhere. Each country acts in its own self interest

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.37  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.33    5 years ago

When it comes to money it has to go through legal processes. If the US gets a reputation for bad business our arms manufacturers will lose the ability to sell death and destruction capabilities to the ends of the earth. 

If a country feels that the US has harmed them over the course of the past 100 years or so , do they have a legitimate right to confiscate US assets in their country or in their territory?  Or do only we get to make up our desired results? 

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
1.1.38  Split Personality  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.7    5 years ago

Carter instituted sanctions. You have opinions but you cannot rewrite history.

The Carter Years

Islamic radicals captured 52 Americans at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and held them hostage for 444 days beginning in November 1979. U.S. President Jimmy Carter tried unsuccessfully to free them, including authorizing a military rescue attempt. Iranians did not free the hostages until just after Ronald Reagan replaced Carter as president on January 20, 1981.

The United States broke diplomatic relations with Iran in 1980 in the midst of that crisis. The U.S. also levied its first round of sanctions against Iran during this time. Carter banned imports of Iranian oil, froze some $12 billion in Iranian assets in the U.S. and later banned all U.S. trade with and travel to Iran in 1980. The U.S. lifted the embargoes after Iran released the hostages.

Carter also canceled all Iranian visas.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.39  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.37    5 years ago
If the US gets a reputation for bad business our arms manufacturers will lose the ability to sell death and destruction capabilities to the ends of the earth. 

If a nation goes from friendly to hostile and we treat the hostile as such, I think it sends a positive message, rather than a negative.


If a country feels that the US has harmed them over the course of the past 100 years or so , do they have a legitimate right to confiscate US assets in their country or in their territory?  

John, Iran has already done worse!  An Embassy is considered the sovereign state of the country it serves. We were attacked, many times by Iran. I'm suing for damages! Totaling far more than what we owed the Shah's government.

Or do only we get to make up our desired results?

You have it backwards. They have to be accountable for what they did.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.40  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Split Personality @1.1.38    5 years ago
Carter also canceled all Iranian visas.

And Carter stood by while our ally the Shar, was being removed from power. The Islamic fanatics should have NEVER been allowed to take control. Think of the middle east today if the Shah had remained in power?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.41  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.40    5 years ago

Unfortunately the Shah oppressed his own people.  The fact that the US backed the Shah, installed him in power originally, and kept a blind eye while he oppressed and tortured his own people is why the Iranian revolution happened. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
1.1.42  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.19    5 years ago

Fat lot of good it did anyway...

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.1.43  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.40    5 years ago
And then there was the alleged October surprise of 1980. The Reagan administration and Republicans always denied that they had any back-door negotiations with Ayatollah Khomeini's revolutionary regime during the Iran hostage crisis. Specifically, they denied that Reagan's campaign manager, William J. Casey, traveled surreptitiously to Madrid in the summer of 1980 to meet with a representative of the ayatollah, and to suggest that it might be in Iran's interest to stall the negotiations over the release of the American hostages. Casey allegedly intimated that a Reagan administration would resume arms sales to the Iranians.

.

But just a few years ago, Parry discovered a damning memo in the George H.W. Bush Presidential Library. Dated Nov. 4, 1991, the memo was written by President Bush's deputy counsel, Paul Beach, and it described the State Department's efforts to collect documents in response to congressional subpoenas for "material potentially relevant to the October Surprise allegations." Beach then specifically mentions "a cable from the Madrid embassy indicating that Bill Casey was in town, for purposes unknown."

So we now know that Casey took time off from his campaign duties sometime in the summer of 1980 to visit Madrid. For "purposes unknown." That's all we know: There is a 1991 White House memo about a State Department cable that was presumably dated in 1980. We do not know if Casey went to Madrid with the knowledge of his candidate. Indeed, from what we know about Casey's love for intrigue and even skullduggery, this former spy and veteran of the World War II-era Office of Strategic Services may have initiated his own back-door channel to the Iranians without any authorization from Reagan.

But I think it is now reasonable to conclude that Casey did something. The Iranians dragged out the negotiations over the release of the hostages. President Carter believed these negotiations were nearly successful in late September 1980, but suddenly new demands were made that stalled the talks. Polls showed Carter within single digits of catching Reagan until about 10 days before the election. Carter lost decisively, and the hostages were inexplicably released minutes after Reagan was sworn in as president.

The story does not end there. Months later, Reagan's newly installed CIA director, Casey, gave the green light to Israel to sell weapons to Iran. In retrospect, this was the beginning of the scandal that broke in 1987, when it became known that the Reagan administration had been exchanging weapons for hostages. Casey died of a brain tumor soon after the scandal broke, taking to his grave further details of this October surprise.
 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.44  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.41    5 years ago
Unfortunately the Shah oppressed his own people.

Did he oppress them as much as the theocracy is?

 The fact that the US backed the Shah, installed him in power originally

Take a look at my avatar - He was the architect of all that and the reason we all slept in safety

 and kept a blind eye while he oppressed and tortured his own people is why the Iranian revolution happened. 

Actually, the mullahs who were taking CIA payments to keep a lid on dissent, suddenly stop getting paid when Carter became President. The Shah's Generals became alarmed when the uprising began. The Shah brushed it all off expecting Carter to come to his aid. What an example Carter provided to all the third world countries that never knew democracy but looked to the US for a strong ally!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.45  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ender @1.1.43    5 years ago

Much of that was motivated by Iran's well perceived weakness of Carter. Carter was a man of principle even when it was self defeating

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.46  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.41    5 years ago
 ...In 1953, the United States sought to promote its strategic interest by attacking an Iranian regime of which it disapproved. The results were exactly the opposite of those for which American leaders had hoped. If the United States had not sent agents to depose Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953, Iran would probably have continued along its path toward full democracy. Over the decades that followed, it might have become the first democratic state in the Muslim Middle East, and perhaps even a model for other coun- tries in the region and beyond. That would have profoundly changed the course of history—not simply Iranian or even Middle Eastern history, but the history of the United States and the world. 
...The United States violently interrupted Iran’s progress toward freedom by overthrowing Prime Minister Mossadegh in 1953, and the long-term result was devastating for both countries. Half a century later, another group of American leaders ordered the invasion of Iraq, with comparably catastrophic effect. Despite these debacles, some in Washington still believe that military force can produce positive change in Iran. No one is more horrified by this than the brave corps of Iranian democrats who, at great risk, are campaigning for reform in their homeland.
 “The Iranian state is certainly guilty of violating many of its citizens’ basic rights,” the Iranian dissident Akbar Ganji, who spent six grueling years in prison after writing a book that accused Iranian officials of ordering political assassinations, told an interviewer in 2007. “But a military attack is not a just or effective response.... An attack would be calamitous for the innocent people of Iran and the region.... It would foster the growth of fundamentalism in the region [and] reignite the conviction that the Judeo-Christian West, led by the United States, is assaulting the world of Islam, from Afghanistan and Palestine to Iraq and Iran.... The current U.S. mili- tary threat has given the Iranian government a freer hand in repressing Iran’s budding civil society in the name of national security, and so eclipsed democratic discourse that some Iranian reformists see themselves caught between domestic despotism and foreign invasion. Political change in Iran is necessary, but it cannot be achieved by foreign intervention.”
from the book

All the Shah's Men

by Stephen Kinzer

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.47  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.44    5 years ago

The U.S. does not have clean hands in Iran.  We interfered with their democratic government.  You dont seem to realize that events from decades ago have later reverberations. 

Does 'ugly American' mean anything to you or are we meant to inherit the earth? 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.48  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.46    5 years ago

51zQ5pGmSAL._SX329_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

The protectors!


 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.49  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.47    5 years ago
Does 'ugly American' mean anything to you or are we meant to inherit the earth? 

It means that nations which have never known democracy, nor have the institutions to support it are going to be one of two things - either an anti US dictatorship or a pro US dictatorship. I prefer the latter.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
1.1.50  Split Personality  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.1.42    5 years ago

Same shit with Saddam Hussein.

We intervened and look at the mess, now.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.1.51  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.45    5 years ago
Much of that was motivated by Iran's well perceived weakness of Carter. Carter was a man of principle even when it was self defeating

Can't really disagree with that.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
1.1.52  Split Personality  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.44    5 years ago
Did he oppress them as much as the theocracy is?

Absolutely.

The same way Hussein oppressed the different tribes in Iraq

and Qaddafi oppressed enemy tribes in Libya.

Few dictators like our political merrygoround of elected and appointed officials...

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.53  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.48    5 years ago

Protectors of what?

...Mossadegh’s loose political alliance, the National Front, led the opposition to the OCI contract. During de-  bates over the contract in parliament, one National Front deputy warned that its cost would “break the back of  future generations.” Another argued that “Iran should not blindly follow the advice of a foreign power” and should entrust its development “not to American advisers, but to trained Iranian experts who are qualified by  experience.” These speeches struck a patriotic chord, and in December 1950 parliament, by refusing to appro-  priate funds for the project, effectively killed it. This liquidated with a single stroke the giant endeavor from  which Allen and OCI had hoped to earn great profits—and which would have been an ideal base for projecting  American influence throughout Iran and the Middle East.  Not content with striking this heavy blow against the position of foreign capital in Iran, Mossadegh soon  dealt another. Parliament chose him as prime minister on April 28, 1951. Before accepting, he asked for a vote in  favor of nationalizing the country’s oil industry. It was unanimous.

  This dramatic step boded ill for another of Allen’s most important clients, the J. Henry Schroder Banking  Corporation, which served as financial agent for the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and on whose board he sat. It  also jolted Foster, who was then seeking business in Iran for another Sullivan & Cromwell client, the Chase  Manhattan Bank. Beyond that, it was a frontal attack on the structure of the petroleum industry, with which the  firm had been deeply involved for decades and which had become a foundation of the global economy.  Mossadegh’s opposition to Western privilege made him the sort of leader the Dulles brothers instinctively  mistrusted. Their mistrust turned to enmity when he helped kill the OCI contract. It sharpened further when he  nationalized his country’s oil industry. 

He embodied one of their nightmares: a populist rabble-rouser who stirs  the masses by rejecting the way the world is run.  This made Mossadegh the first monster the Dulles brothers set out to destroy. Deposing him was among  their highest priorities for 1953. They had developed a deep grudge against him during their years at Sullivan &  Cromwell. Upon assuming power, they acted on it

from the book The Brothers 

by Stephen Kinzer
 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.54  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Split Personality @1.1.52    5 years ago

So the "Arab springs" have never produced democracy?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.55  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.53    5 years ago

Allen Dulles was part of an attempt to develop Iran in the image of an American conglomerate that wanted to construct an emerging nation in their own image and for their own economic benefit.

 After years of law practice that bored him, Allen had finally acquired a client with global ambition that  matched his own. It was a radically conceived new company, Overseas Consultants Inc., formed by eleven large  American engineering firms, that aimed to do nothing less than change the world by making poor countries—  and themselves—rich. The visionaries who ran OCI were looking for a country to transform. They settled on  Iran, which the United States viewed as a strategic prize.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.56  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.53    5 years ago

John, I'm familiar with the writings of Stephen Kinzer. I think he was wrong on the middle east, yet 100% right on central & south America.

The point is that American foreign policy must benefit and protect America. In the case of the Shah, he was not only good for the world's democracies, he was a stabilizing force in the middle east. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.57  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.55    5 years ago

John, put down the book for a minute. Answer me this, why would you prefer a band of Islamic radicals, who hated America as opposed to the Shah?

Just a valid reason, please..

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.58  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.56    5 years ago

Dulles didnt want to put the Shah in power to keep America safe, he wanted to do it to make himself and his business associates money. 

What threat was Iran to America in 1950? 

It became a threat later due to our meddling in their business. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.59  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.58    5 years ago
It became a threat later due to our meddling in their business. 

It became a threat when Jimmy Carter stood there and let an American ally get taken down!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2  Tessylo    5 years ago

How is Iran the No. 1 sponsor of terrorism?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @2    5 years ago

"Founded by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps soon after the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Hezbollah has always had an intimate relationship with Iran based on a shared ideological foundation. Today, Hezbollah is no longer just a proxy of Iran; it is in a "strategic partnership" with Iran, as National Counterterrorism Center director Matthew Olsen put it. Or, in the words of Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, Hezbollah and Iran are in "a partnership arrangement . . . with the Iranians as the senior partner."

For the past 30 years, this has proven to be a mutually beneficial relationship. From Iran, Hezbollah gets tens of thousands of rockets, hundreds of millions of dollars a year, training and operational logistical support from Iran. From Hezbollah, Iran gets an extended reach — to the Mediterranean and beyond — and a means of targeting its enemies from afar with reasonable deniability.

Today, Hezbollah targets Israeli tourists around the world — in Bulgaria, Cyprus, Thailand, Nigeria — not out of any Lebanese interest but at Iran's command. The U.S. State Department concluded in its annual Country Reports on terrorism that 2012 represented "a marked resurgence of Iran's state sponsorship of terrorism" in which "Iran and Hezbollah's terrorist activity has reached a tempo unseen since the 1990s."

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
2.1.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    5 years ago

Vic is correct here. They are the biggest export of terrorists. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.1    5 years ago

I thought most of our terrorists here were homegrown.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.2    5 years ago
I thought most of our terrorists here were homegrown.

Then why the question about Iran being one of the biggest supporters of terrorism?

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
2.1.4  Ronin2  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.2    5 years ago

Terrorism doesn't just occur in the US.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  Ronin2 @2.1.4    5 years ago

'Terrorism doesn't just occur in the US.'

No shit Sherlock?

But when it occurs here in the U.S. it is 99.999999999% homegrown.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.1    5 years ago

'Vic is correct here. They are the biggest export of terrorists.'

To where do they export them?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.6    5 years ago
To where do they export them?

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/iran-still-top-state-sponsor-terrorism-u-s-report-says

iranintelligence.com/terror

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/hillary-clinton-iran-exports-terrorism-mexico

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-real-largest-state-sponsor-of-terrorism_b_58cafc26e...

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
2.1.8  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.2    5 years ago
I thought most of our terrorists here were homegrown.  

And you would be right.

"On Wednesday, the Anti-Defamation League released a report finding that attackers with ties to right-wing extremist movements killed at least 50 people in 2018. That was close to the total number of Americans killed by domestic extremists, meaning that the far right had an almost absolute monopoly on lethal terrorism in the United States last year. That monopoly would be total if, in one case, the perpetrator had not “switched from white supremacist to radical Islamist beliefs prior to committing the murder.”

The number of fatalities is 35 percent higher than the previous year, and it marks the fourth-deadliest year for such attacks since 1970. In fact, according to the ADL, white supremacists are responsible for the majority of such attacks “almost every year.”

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.9  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.1.8    5 years ago

We've heard the narrative. The question was if Iran was the greatest sponsor of terrorism.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.9    5 years ago

Did you feel the earth move when the goalposts were moved?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.11  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.10    5 years ago

Iv'e seen them shifted in a subtle manner. This is the first time Iv'e seen them yanked out and dragged 40 feet

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3  author  Vic Eldred    5 years ago

Back in a few

 
 

Who is online


Nerm_L
Tacos!
Tessylo
Ed-NavDoc
GregTx
CB


96 visitors