What's new

Nuclear Deal With Iran Prelude to War, Not "Breakthrough"

Hasbara Buster

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Aug 17, 2010
Messages
4,612
Reaction score
-7
Nuclear Deal With Iran Prelude to War, Not "Breakthrough"

November 27, 2013 "Information Clearing House - "...any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context—both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal."

Written years ago, as the US, Saudi Arabia, and Israel were already plotting to overrun Iran's neighbor and ally Syria with Al Qaeda to weaken the Islamic Republic before inevitable war, this quote exposes fully the current charade that is the "Iran nuclear deal." The West has no intention of striking any lasting deal with Iran, as nuclear capabilities, even the acquirement of nuclear weapons by Iran was never truly an existential threat to Western nations or their regional partners. The West's issue with Iran is its sovereignty and its ability to project its interests into spheres traditionally monopolized by the US and UK across the Middle East. Unless Iran plans on turning over its sovereignty and regional influence along with its right to develop and use nuclear technology, betrayal of any "nuclear deal" is all but inevitable, as is the war that is to shortly follow. Exposing the duplicity that accompanies Western "efforts" to strike a deal will severely undermine their attempt to then use the deal as leverage to justify military operations against Iran. For Iran and its allies, they must be prepared for war, more so when the West feigns interest in peace. Libya serves as a perfect example of the fate that awaits nations reproached by the West who let down their guard - it literally is a matter of life and death both for leaders, and for nations as a whole.

Tony Cartalucci: Nuclear Deal With Iran Prelude to War, Not
"Breakthrough"
 
.
Eeh? I think Iran settled the score with the US by now.

Why are they creating so much noise of it?
 
.
Author does have some valid points.

But there are a lot of flaws in the argument.

Iranian leadership has no choice but to negotiate and get the sanctions off their butts.
 
.
Iran would have known all along that USA/Israel do not desire Shiah strongholds of Syria or Iran to be destroyed or degraded. The West carefully orchestrates a Shiah-Sunni conflict to keep the Muslims preoccupied in fratricide.
 
.
prelude to war ?

heck we are ready
mix1-irangif869.gif
mix1-irangif860.gif


anyhow , the author is deluded
 
.
Iran would have known all along that USA/Israel do not desire Shiah strongholds of Syria or Iran to be destroyed or degraded. The West carefully orchestrates a Shiah-Sunni conflict to keep the Muslims preoccupied in fratricide.


Chalo Ji,

Since when Shias are declared Kafir by Americans

Since when Sunnis are declared Kafir by Ayatullahs sitting in London?

Islamists do all the the cr@p shit against other Muslims and then turn around and blame goras.

Wah bhai Wah
 
.
Chalo Ji,

Since when Shias are declared Kafir by Americans

Since when Sunnis are declared Kafir by Ayatullahs sitting in London?

Islamists do all the the cr@p shit against other Muslims and then turn around and blame goras.

Wah bhai Wah


1.Nobody is declaring any body kafir. The Western imperialist capitalists exploit differences among people/nation sand take advantage.

2. The West had dreaded the great Ayatullah Ruhullah Khomeini because he was preaching to end the Shia-Sunni defferences.
 
.
1.Nobody is declaring any body kafir. The Western imperialist capitalists exploit differences among people/nation sand take advantage.

2. The West had dreaded the great Ayatullah Ruhullah Khomeini because he was preaching to end the Shia-Sunni defferences.


You my dear live in Canada and sing songs praises for the black faced cruel Khomeni may he burn in hell forever along with Saudi Mullahs.


Khomeni was the one who exported Shia imperialism into Pakistan. (Just like Wahabi imperialism was exported from Saudi to Pakistan. )

That mardood is the one who funded Shia militants and other organizations both political and terrorist in nature.

But you won't know.

Your imperialism stops with goras where you live.


Take your Islamist blinders off and see how Iranian and Saudi imperialism has forked Pakistani people of all kinds of sects and religions.
 
.
You my dear live in Canada and sing songs praises for the black faced cruel Khomeni may he burn in hell forever along with Saudi Mullahs.


Khomeni was the one who exported Shia imperialism into Pakistan. (Just like Wahabi imperialism was exported from Saudi to Pakistan. )

That mardood is the one who funded Shia militants and other organizations both political and terrorist in nature.

But you won't know.

Your imperialism stops with goras where you live.


Take your Islamist blinders off and see how Iranian and Saudi imperialism has forked Pakistani people of all kinds of sects and religions.

1. In fact I have lived/worked in Pakistan more than the years I have logged in Canada whose current rulers are right-wing hawks.

2.The genesis of Shia issue ( although I believe this to be politically motivated) in Pakistan is far older than Ruhullah Khomeini. Sir Aga Khan was a Shia Ismaili. Although born into Ismaili parents, Jinnah transformed and had become a good sect-less Muslim while leading the Pakistan movement. Liaqat Ali Khan was a Shia. So were Iskandar Mirza and Khwaja Nazimuddin.

3. Suhrawardy, the PM of Bengal under whom ML won the only majority in the 1946 Indian elections, was the most deserving candidate to be the first PM of Pakistan. But for his tremendous contribution there would have been no credibility in the demand for Pakistan. But he was a Sunni belonging to an old family of Islamic scholars.He was easily sidelined by the Shias and mohajirs around Jinnah.

4. Ayub was the first strong Sunni leader of Pakistan.He was lured into the 1965 War without sufficient preparation by his Shiah FM Bhutto. PA C-in-C and CGS were Shiahs.Although it was a 12 Div battle, Gen Akhtar Malik was sidelined to push CGS Shia Yahya into a heroic role to make the Akhnoor advance. Therefore,it was an easy jump for Yahya to make the Chief. And the final advice to Ayub to leave came from the Shah, then seen as representing US interests in the region.

5. Bhutto broke Pakistan. The Shahinshah saw this as going according to his dream to enhance his empire. Benazir and Zaradri were/are Shias. Gen Zia and Nawaz S were/are the only strong Sunni rulers.

6.Have you ever calculated how much Qadyianis collect monthly from followers? Where does this money go?Some of course go to the Massih, but the residue would be huge. Those who know,are aware much of this is spent on own cadre to spread Shia-Sunni conflict. That I believe is the opinion of Iranian Intel.

7.Ruhullah Khomeini had become a terror for the West-Zionists because he was working to remove Shia-Sunni differences.However, the same cannot be said of his successors.
 
.
1. In fact I have lived/worked in Pakistan more than the years I have logged in Canada whose current rulers are right-wing hawks.

2.The genesis of Shia issue ( although I believe this to be politically motivated) in Pakistan is far older than Ruhullah Khomeini. Sir Aga Khan was a Shia Ismaili. Although born into Ismaili parents, Jinnah transformed and had become a good sect-less Muslim while leading the Pakistan movement. Liaqat Ali Khan was a Shia. So were Iskandar Mirza and Khwaja Nazimuddin.

3. Suhrawardy, the PM of Bengal under whom ML won the only majority in the 1946 Indian elections, was the most deserving candidate to be the first PM of Pakistan. But for his tremendous contribution there would have been no credibility in the demand for Pakistan. But he was a Sunni belonging to an old family of Islamic scholars.He was easily sidelined by the Shias and mohajirs around Jinnah.

4. Ayub was the first strong Sunni leader of Pakistan.He was lured into the 1965 War without sufficient preparation by his Shiah FM Bhutto. PA C-in-C and CGS were Shiahs.Although it was a 12 Div battle, Gen Akhtar Malik was sidelined to push CGS Shia Yahya into a heroic role to make the Akhnoor advance. Therefore,it was an easy jump for Yahya to make the Chief. And the final advice to Ayub to leave came from the Shah, then seen as representing US interests in the region.

5. Bhutto broke Pakistan. The Shahinshah saw this as going according to his dream to enhance his empire. Benazir and Zaradri were/are Shias. Gen Zia and Nawaz S were/are the only strong Sunni rulers.

6.Have you ever calculated how much Qadyianis collect monthly from followers? Where does this money go?Some of course go to the Massih, but the residue would be huge. Those who know,are aware much of this is spent on own cadre to spread Shia-Sunni conflict. That I believe is the opinion of Iranian Intel.

7.Ruhullah Khomeini had become a terror for the West-Zionists because he was working to remove Shia-Sunni differences.However, the same cannot be said of his successors.



I think my dear Sir,

your analysis of 1965 war is very very Mullahtic.

The rest of the post doesn't make sense. Sorry to say.

How could it makes sense, when you simply list a bunch of conspiracy theories a la ZH.
 
.
War is upon Iran if it continues developing its nuclear programme
 
. .
.....says war mongering Israel.

On the contrary, Israel will prevent a nuclear Iran in order not to let it seize control over the ME. If Iran stop its pursuit after nukes and cease its terrorist activity, Israel will do it no harm. Iran was our ally...
 
.
On the contrary, Israel will prevent a nuclear Iran in order not to let it seize control over the ME. If Iran stop its pursuit after nukes and cease its terrorist activity, Israel will do it no harm. Iran was our ally...
Seize control over middle east? This is not a computer game.
 
. .

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom