U.S. Radically Changes Its Story of the Boats in Iranian Waters: to an Even More Suspicious Version
Provided their government script, U.S. media outlets repeatedly cited these phrases — “mechanical failure” and “inadvertently drifted” and “boat in distress” — like some sort of hypnotic mantra. Here’s Eli Lake of Bloomberg News explaining yesterday why this was all Iran’s fault:
Iran’s handling of the situation violated international norms. … Two small U.S. sea craft transiting between Kuwait and Bahrain strayed into Iranian territorial waters because of a mechanical failure, according to the U.S. side. This means the boats were in distress.
Lake quoted John McCain as saying that “boats do not lose their sovereign immune status when they are in distress at sea.” The night the news broke, Reuters quickly said the “boats may have inadvertently drifted into Iranian waters” and “another U.S. official said mechanical issues may have disabled one of the boats, leading to a situation in which both ships drifted inadvertently into Iranian waters.”
The U.S. government itself now says this story was false. There was no engine failure, and the boats were never “in distress.” Once the sailors were released, AP reported, “In Washington, a defense official said the Navy has ruled out engine or propulsion failure as the reason the boats entered Iranian waters.”
Instead, said Defense Secretary Ashton Carter at a press conference this morning, the sailors “made a navigational error that mistakenly took them into Iranian territorial waters.” He added that they “obviously had misnavigated” when, in the words of the New York Times, “they came within a few miles of Farsi Island, where Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps has a naval base.” The LA Times conveyed this new official explanation: “A sailor may have punched the wrong coordinates into the GPS and they wound up off course. Or the crew members may have taken a shortcut into Iranian waters as they headed for the refueling ship, officials said.” The initial slogan “inadvertently drifted” — suggesting a disabled boat helplessly floating wherever the ocean takes it — has now been replaced in the script by “inadvertently strayed,” meaning the boats were erroneously steered into Iranian waters without any intention to go there.
It is, of course, theoretically possible that this newest rendition of events is what happened. But there are multiple reasons to suspect otherwise. To begin with, U.S. sailors frequently travel between Bahrain and Kuwait, two key U.S. allies, the former of which hosts the Fifth Fleet headquarters; these were familiar waters.
Moreover, at no point did either of the ships notify anyone that they had inadvertently “misnavigated” into Iranian territorial waters, a significant enough event that would warrant some sort of radio or other notification. “U.S. defense officials were befuddled about how both vessels’ navigational systems failed to alert them that they were entering Iranian waters,” reported the Daily Beast’s Nancy Youseff on Tuesday night. Carter sought to explain this away by saying, “It may have been they were trying to sort it out at the time when they encountered the Iranian boats.” Not one sailor on either of the boats could communicate the “error”? Beyond that, “misnavigating” within a few miles of an Iranian Guard Corps naval base is a striking coincidence (the LA Times summarized an exciting and remarkable tale of how the boats were perhaps running out of gas, entered Iranian waters merely as a “shortcut,” experienced engine failure when they tried to escape, and then on top of all these misfortunes, experienced radio failure).
What we know for certain is that the storyline of “mechanical failure” and “poor U.S. boat in distress” that was originally propagated — on which Lake exclusively relied to blame the Iranians — was complete fiction. At least according to the government’s latest version, the boats were working just fine. But, as always, the bulk of the U.S. media narrative was built around totally unverified, self-serving claims from the U.S. government, which, yet again, turned out to be completely false.
Perhaps there are valid reasons why the U.S. military — while the sailors were still in Iranian custody — would falsely claim that the boats experienced “mechanical failure” and were in “distress,” as that would excuse an otherwise intentional act (one of the sailors in the video taken by Iranclaimed they were “having engine issues”). But the fact that there is a good reason for the U.S. government to make false claims does not excuse the U.S. media’s uncritical regurgitation of them nor the construction of a narrative based on them depicting Iran as the aggressor; it may be shocking to hear, but the U.S. government and U.S. media are supposed to have different functions.
This happens over and over. A significant incident occurs, such as the U.S. bombing of an MSF hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan. The U.S. government makes claims about what happened. The U.S. media uncritically repeat them over and over. And then the U.S. government just blithely changes its story repeatedly, implicitly admitting that the tales it originally told were utterly false. But the next time a similar event happens, there is no heightened skepticism of U.S. government claims: its media treat them as Gospel.
THE INTERCEPT
THE INTERCEPT
GOP LIKUDS FORCE IN DEEP MOURNING
ReplyDeleteVIENNA —Iran reentered the global economy Saturday, as years of crippling international sanctions were lifted in exchange for the verified disabling of much of its nuclear infrastructure.
For Iran, implementation of the landmark deal it finalized with six world powers last summer means immediate access to more than $50 billion in long-frozen assets, and freedom to sell its oil and purchase goods in the international marketplace. Tehran has hailed the deal as vindication of its power and influence in the world.
“Today marks the start of a safer world,” said Secretary of State John F. Kerry. “We understand this marker alone will not wipe away all the concerns the world has rightly expressed about Iran’s policies in the region. But we also know there isn’t a challenge in the entire region that wouldn’t become much more complicated, much worse, if Iran had a nuclear weapon.”
The removal of sanctions comes as President Obama begins his last year in office, and almost seven years to the day sincamane he called on Iran to “unclench your fist” and take steps toward rapprochement with the United States and the world. As a result of the agreement, he said in his last State of the Union speech this week, a “nuclear-armed Iran” has been prevented, and “the world has avoided another war.”
Iran released Washington Post correspondent Jason Rezaian and three other detained Iranian Americans on Saturday in exchange for the freedom of seven people imprisoned or charged in the United States, U.S. and Iranian officials said, a swap linked to the implementation of a landmark nuclear deal between Tehran and six world powers, including the lifting of U.S. and other international sanctions on Iran.
ReplyDeleteSecretary of State John F. Kerry, speaking after signing documents related to implementing the nuclear accord, said the United States has received confirmation that five Americans “who have been unjustly detained” in Iran have been released and “should be on their way home to their families before long — shortly.” He said long-standing U.S. efforts to free them were “accelerated” thanks to diplomatic channels opened with Iran by the nuclear talks.
“Today marks the first day of a safer world,” Kerry said.
Rezaian, 39, was freed from Tehran’s notorious Evin Prison after 18 months of captivity, U.S. and Iranian officials said, and was waiting along with the other Americans to be flown out of the country aboard a Swiss plane.
Apparently paving the way for the departure was a report issued Saturday by the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency “confirming that Iran has completed the necessary preparatory steps to start the implementation” of the nuclear deal.
AIPAC IN DEEP MOURNING
ReplyDeleteMYRTLE BEACH, South Carolina — Republican presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz spoke on Saturday about the Iran prisoner swap deal, calling it “a piece of propaganda for Iran and the Obama administration.”
Cruz said that the release of four American prisoners by Iran is good news but that “we’ve got to shake our heads at how this happened.” He added that “there is a false moral equivalence in a deal like this” and that the deal “serves as a piece of propaganda for Iran and the Obama administration.”
Two boats loaded with U.S. Marines, armed to the teeth, snooping and pooping offshore(?) an Iranian Naval Base.
ReplyDeleteThose guys were lucky that the Iranians didn't want to let anything interfere with their hard-negotiated Nuclear Deal.
Btw, there's a diplomatic/political term for what happened - Armed Invasion.
DeleteThe Iranians have a sense of humor, handing them apples.
DeleteNow if we can all live to see the Neocons rounded up , arrested, tried, convicted and hanged for treason.
ReplyDeleteLet's just pray we can prevent them getting back into the White House.
DeleteNow if we could stuff an apple in Netanyahu’s mouth...
ReplyDeleteI liked the imagery of the hellfire somewhere else that you came up with the other day. :)
DeleteThe Iranian Firsters are having a field day.
ReplyDeleteBoth of them.
Eat me Jew boy.
Delete
ReplyDeleteREUTERS ROLLING: TRUMP 38.2%, CRUZ 14.9%, CARSON 10.7%, BUSH 9.6%... MORE... DRUDGE
Trump only 24% ahead of Cruz.
Bush is showing how 'money talks' at 9.6%
Lovely Iran, wonderful Iran, civilized Iran -
ReplyDeleteThe Real War on Women in a Nightmarish Islamic State
How the Islamic Republic hates, tortures and kills females.
January 15, 2016
Dr. Majid Rafizadeh
19
When it comes to executions, girls are systematically more vulnerable due to the Islamist penal code of Sharia law.
Let’s take a look at the Islamist state of Iran, which creates its laws from the legal codes of Sharia and Quran. The first type of discrimination is related to age: girls are held criminally accountable at the maturity age of 9 Lunar years. (This will automatically put girls at a higher risk of execution by the court.)
Iranian ruling politicians hold the highest record when it comes to the most executions per capita in the world. Intriguingly, in the last two years that the so-called moderate, Hassan Rouhani, has been in office, there have been more than 2000 executions conducted in Iran. That is nearly 3-4 executions a day.
More importantly, Iranian leaders are also the largest executioner of women and female juveniles. Some of these executions were carried out on the mullahs’ charge of ‘Moharebeh’ (enmity with Allah), or waging war against Allah, ifsad-i Fil Arz (Sowing Corruption on Earth), or Sab-i Nabi (Insulting the Prophet).
There are three methods of execution for women and female juveniles: 1. Stoning 2. Public hanging 3. Shooting. Some women are also beaten so severely in the prison that they die before reaching the execution. Shooting, which is the fastest method of the three for execution, has not been used since 2008. Instead, the most common method to execute women is public hanging or stoning. Some of these women are flogged right before they are hanged. Public hanging not only imposes fears in the society but also aims at dehumanizing and controlling women as second-class citizens. According to the Islamist penal code of Iran, women offenses are classified as: Hadd, Diyyih, Ta`zir, and Qisas.
Some of these women are stoned for adultery. But even in stoning, the Islamists and Sharia law differentiate between men and women. Women are buried to the neck while men are buried to the waist. This allows some men to be capable of running away from the stoning, while women do not have a chance for survival, at all. If women are still alive after hours of stoning, a large block normally is smashed over their head.
DeleteWomen from ethnic and religious minorities, as well as political dissidents, have also been targets of these executions. Based on the latest report, Ahmed Shaheed, the U.N.’s special “rapporteur” on human rights in Iran, pointed out that executing individuals from religious and ethnic minority groups are carried out because those victims were “exercising their protected rights, including freedom of expression and association…..When the Iranian government refuses to even acknowledge the full extent of executions which have occurred, it shows a callous disregard for both human dignity and international human rights law.”
In the latest report, Amnesty International announced: “Execution of two juvenile offenders in just a few days makes a mockery of Iran’s juvenile justice system.” And the United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon condemned Iran and warned about the rise of executions in Iran which "reflect a worrying trend in Iran….Over 700 executions are reported to have taken place so far this year, including at least 40 public, marking the highest total recorded in the past 12 years."
In many of these cases related to women and female juveniles, it is clear that they were executed for either self-defense against forced marriage or a rapist, or for charges such as freedom of expression. They often are forced to marry at a very young age to an older person, or someone they do not like, such as in the case of the child bride, Farzaneh (Razieh) Moradi - who was forced to marry at the age of 15 and was executed in the city of Esfahan. These women were beaten and raped, repeatedly, by their spouses or relatives until they could not take it anymore and defended themselves. Some of these girls are being imprisoned and executed based on the fabricated charges of possessing opium. For example, in the case of the 16-year-old Sogand, the police found opium in her father’s house, but because there was no one at home except her, they arrested her. She is still in prison as none of her family members have come forward to save her life.
Some of these executions are based on the issue of “honor.” For example, some of these girls follow their hearts and fall in love with someone they choose themselves. But since their brothers and fathers disagree with this, the females get punished. For example, in the case of Mahsa, a seventeen-year-old, her brothers are the ones seeking her execution. In addition, if an Iranian Muslim woman has sex with a Christian or Jewish person, she will be executed (but a Muslim man is allowed to have sex with non-Muslim women).
Some of these girls are raped, repeatedly, in the process of investigation and forced into “Sighah”- the Shiite Islamist law of temporary marriage - with a cleric, or a member of Etela’at (intelligence), or Revolutionary Guard Corps before they are executed. Amnesty International previously pointed out that there are a “considerable” number of reports regarding this issue.
While the West is looking to lift sanctions against Iranian leaders in a few days and normalize ties with Iran, it is critical to look at the egregious human rights violations that this country is allowing. Is being silent and turning a blind eye to these human rights abuses appropriate? Doesn’t normalizing ties with the Iranian leaders and releasing billions of dollars to them, facilitate their efforts of executing more people, including women and child girls?
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/261471/real-war-women-nightmarish-islamic-state-dr-majid-rafizadeh
Iran's legal system, such as it is, does not represent an existential threat to the US.
ReplyDeleteSorry, Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson, but that's the reality.
No US service members lives need to be pissed away because of what Iranians do in Iran.
Dead Beat Dad aka Jack is Back is back stalking.
ReplyDeleteHe's a psycho.
Quirk's analysis was the most complete.
Others were good, but not so detailed.
How's your super secret project essential to our national security going off the shores of Central America there, psycho ?
We are all anxious to know, though no one believes a word you say.
Ask Laggard, Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson, he seems to know less about it than you do. Which in your world, makes him an expert.
DeleteThe rest of us deal in realities.
You and Laggard, don't.
Dead Beat Dad aka Jack is Back is back stalking.
DeleteHe's a psycho.
Quirk's analysis was the most complete.
Others were good, but not so detailed.
How's your super secret project essential to our national security going off the shores of Central America there, psycho ?
We are all anxious to know, though no one believes a word you say.
Washington's decades-old ban on the export of civilian passenger aircraft to Tehran has been lifted by US President Barack Obama, who delegated that authority to Secretary of State John Kerry through a presidential memorandum Friday.
ReplyDeleteThe move was announced ahead of the implementation of Iran’s historic nuclear deal with world powers, which is expected to happen over the weekend.
Imagine that. We sell planes to Iran instead having to give them to them, such as with Israel. What a horror!
The US should giv the Iranians at least one airliner, to replace the Air Bus A300B2-200 that on 3 July 1988 was designated Iran Air Flight 655 the Iran Air civilian passenger flight from Tehran to Dubai that was shot down by a SM-2MR surface-to-air missiles fired from the USS Vincennes. All 290 civilians on board died.
ReplyDelete... the incident retains the highest death toll of any aviation incident in the Persian Gulf.
The United States government did not formally apologize to Iran.[14] In 1996, the United States and Iran reached a settlement at the International Court of Justice which included the statement "...the United States recognized the aerial incident of 3 July 1988 as a terrible human tragedy and expressed deep regret over the loss of lives caused by the incident...".[15] As part of the settlement, the United States did not admit legal liability but agreed to pay on an ex gratia basis US$61.8 million, amounting to $213,103.45 per passenger, in compensation to the families of the Iranian victims.
ReplyDeletewiki
"the United States and Iran reached a settlement at the International Court of Justice"
DeleteYou got to admit it's a gas.
ReplyDeleteThe Hillary campaign is doing everything possible now to hide from view:
1) Hillary
2) Billygoat
3) Chelsea, now she flamed out in her first outing
Ha ha HA HA HA
At least Crazy Bernie the Red isn't so adverse to getting out there and making a fool of himself.
ReplyDeleteIf the US press today weren't evenly split between toadys and military incoherents, they should have seen what has been clear to anyone who has any military experience.
Here is Matt Bracken's stunning take:
I rarely pull out my dusty old trident, but in this case, here goes. I was a Navy SEAL officer in the 1980s, and this kind of operation (transiting small boats in foreign waters) was our bread and butter. Today, these boats both not only had radar, but multiple GPS devices, including chart plotters that place your boat's icon right on the chart. The claim by Iran that the USN boats "strayed into Iranian waters" is complete bull$#it.
For an open-water transit between nations, the course is studied and planned in advance by the leaders of the Riverine Squadron, with specific attention given to staying wide and clear of any hostile nation's claimed territorial waters. The boats are given a complete mechanical check before departure, and they have sufficient fuel to accomplish their mission plus extra. If, for some unexplainable and rare circumstance one boat broke down, the other would tow it, that's why two boats go on these trips and not one! It's called "self-rescue" and it's SOP.
This entire situation is in my area of expertise. I can state with complete confidence that both Iran and our own State Department are lying. The boats did not enter Iranian waters. They were overtaken in international waters by Iranian patrol boats that were so superior in both speed and firepower that it became a "hands up!" situation, with automatic cannons in the 40mm to 76mm range pointed at them point-blank. Surrender, hands up, or be blown out of the water. I assume that the Iranians had an English speaker on a loudspeaker to make the demand. This takedown was no accident or coincidence, it was a planned slap across America's face.
Just watch. The released sailors will be ordered not to say a word about the incident, and the Iranians will have taken every GPS device, chart-plotter etc off the boats, so that we will not be able to prove where our boats were taken.
The "strayed into Iranian waters" story being put out by Iran and our groveling and appeasing State Dept. is utter and complete BS from one end to the other.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/01/calling_bs_on_the_official_story_of_the_iranian_capture_of_two_us_riverine_boats.html#ixzz3xTKiJTdI
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
At the Gates of Vienna, Brian Bodissey passes along an update from Matt Bracken:
DeleteI think that the take-down happened in international waters. The Iranians would have known to the minute when the boats were leaving Kuwait, and their probable course to Bahrain, so an intercept would be simple. They know our ROE would be “Do not shoot EVER unless you are fired upon first. PERIOD!!!”
So, if the Iranians jam our boats so they cannot communicate, and then swoop in close, it’s almost a guaranteed outcome. They KNOW we won’t shoot first! So by coming in closer and closer with weapons aimed at our sailors, overwhelming them with numbers at point-blank, then on loudspeaker they say, “Step away from your weapons or we will slaughter you!” At that point, it’s a fait accompli. Once our sailors step back from their guns, it’s over. Next, “Take off your jackets and weapons” etc, until they are in t-shirts only. Then “Kneel down!”
Step by step they get their way, based on a deep understanding of our ROE and our responses at every stage. Once they have control of our boats, they can drive them to Farsi Island, and remove every single GPS device, radar, cell phone etc. Then, there can be no proof of where the attack happened. And worst of all, Obama and Kerry are happy to go along with the lie, in order not to upset the nuclear deal applecart.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/01/calling_bs_on_the_official_story_of_the_iranian_capture_of_two_us_riverine_boats.html#ixzz3xTM8sveN
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
.
DeleteGood lord, man, aren't you even the least bit embarrassed putting this bs up?
.
Not in the least, Torpor.
DeleteWhat's your take ? If you have the energy to state it.
726 comments on the issue so far, Torps.
DeleteMost comments I've ever seen for an AT article.
People are interested.
Read through it. All sorts of opinions expressed.
Will help you better make up your own 'mind'.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/01/calling_bs_on_the_official_story_of_the_iranian_capture_of_two_us_riverine_boats_comments.html
DeleteWhatever you think, don't make up your mind by listening to General Rufus.
He's the General that said ISIS would be 100% finished last 4th of July.
Mor - For
ReplyDeleteTor - Por
January 17, 2016
Barry and the Pirates
By William A. Levinson
It is particularly telling that Barack Obama spent part of his State of the Union speech telling us that the state of our Union is strong while Iranian pirates seized two U.S. Navy vessels and then, as pointed out by Rick Moran, violated the Geneva Conventions by publishing a photo of the captured sailors on their knees with their hands on their heads.
The Iranian action was both piracy and an intentional act of war against the United States. If the boats strayed into Iranian waters due to navigational or mechanical problems, Iran was obliged under international law to render them assistance. "Accidents in international air or sea traffic, even those involving military vessels, generally require nations to assist the victims and keep hands off the stricken planes or ships, the experts said." Note also that "Iranian officials searched [the boats] for advanced technology and sensitive communications."
If this is not enough to define Iran's behavior as piracy and an act of war, Moran also pointed out that an Iranian general said openly that its purpose was to teach the United States a lesson. "'This incident in the Persian Gulf, which probably will not be the American forces' last mistake in the region, should be a lesson to troublemakers in the U.S. Congress,' Major General Hassan Firouzabadi, head of Iran's armed forces, was quoted as saying by Tasnim news agency."
The Iranian pirates then drove this point home by publishing humiliating images of our service members on their knees with their hands over their heads (a war crime) as well as captured American weapons. In addition, we have to ask how the pirates managed to capture the boats in the first place.
Why Did the Boats Surrender?
Noting also that it is disgraceful for any soldier or sailor to give up his or her weapon except under the direst circumstances, this also is an intentional humiliation of the United States. Napoleon Bonaparte, for example, once punished some men who had allowed themselves to be disarmed by a mob by forcing them to appear on parade with wooden swords. The Code of Conduct for the U.S. Armed Forces reinforces this principle: "I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist."
Surrender is therefore acceptable only in the face of overwhelming force, when resistance would result in the futile loss of personnel and material. While Iranian destroyers or frigates, possibly with support from aircraft and antiship missiles, might have constituted overwhelming force against ten sailors in two small boats, why were the U.S. destroyers and aircraft carriers that should have supported the boats out of position to do so? The same question might be asked, by the way, why military support was not provided to our ambassador and his staff in Benghazi.
Vice President Joe Biden then lied to the American public by saying that the United States did not apologize to Iran: "Iran neither sought nor received an apology when 10 U.S. Navy sailors were taken into custody by the Islamic republic after drifting into Iranian waters." Iran published simultaneously an apology extorted from the boats' commander: "It was a mistake. That was our fault and we apologize for our mistake." Noting that a captured service member is obliged to provide only his or her name, rank, and serial number, we must ask what kind of threats the pirates made against his crew members, and perhaps the female one in particular, to compel him to make this statement.
DeleteShotgun Joe then added with a straight face, "The Iranians picked up both boats, as we have picked up Iranian boats that needed to be rescued" and then "released them like, you know, ordinary nations would do." Is the vice president of the United States telling us that the United States also committed piracy on the high seas and war crimes by boarding the Iranian boats and forcing their sailors to kneel with their hands on their heads, searching the boats for sensitive and classified material and distributing humiliating photographs of the Iranian sailors?
Don't Give the Bully Your Lunch Money
The bottom line is that Iran demanded the United States' lunch money to see what the United States would do about it, and the United States as led by Barack Obama paid up. This in turn assures Iran's theocrats that the United States will not raise a finger to stop them from building nuclear weapons in violation of their agreement with the United States, just as we have done nothing substantial about their test of a ballistic missile.
Alexander the Great said that he feared an army of sheep led by one lion more than he feared an army of lions led by a sheep, and Iran knows the United States to be led by a sheep. Its piracy of U.S. Navy vessels and its humiliation of our service members proves that the Armed Forces of the United States, as led by Barack Obama, are less to be feared than an army of rabble led by somebody like Vladimir Putin. When Turkey shot down a Russian aircraft and killed a Russian pilot, Putin did not apologize to Recep Erdoğan for purportedly violating Turkish airspace; he imposed economic sanctions to make Erdoğan regret it.
Anybody who knows anything about leadership realizes that the instant the bully demands your lunch money, you must knock him down on the spot, or else he will take your lunch money every day, and then perhaps your school books and everything else you have. An excellent scene in Bernard Cornwell's Sharpe's Devil (1990, 139-140) illustrates this principle.
DeleteRichard Sharpe (played by Sean Bean in the TV series) has been pressed into service on a ship with some very unsavory characters, including a bully named Balin. Balin says he likes Sharpe's English coat and moves to take it from him, whereupon:
… the moment his hand took hold of the material Sharpe brought up his right boot, hard and straight, the kick hidden by the coat until the instant it slammed into Balin's groin. The big man grunted, mouth open, and Sharpe rammed his head forward, hearing and feeling the teeth break under his forehead's blow. [Sharpe continues to batter him even after he is down and then] … he stooped, plucked a good bone-handled knife from Balin's belt, picked his coat up from the deck, and looked around. "Does anyone else want an English coat?"
Rudyard Kipling made the same point in his poem "Dane-Geld." "And that is called paying the Dane-geld; But we've proved it again and again, That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld; You never get rid of the Dane." The world learned this principle the hard way when Neville Chamberlain let Adolf Hitler steal his lunch money, along with Czechoslovakia, at Munich. Chamberlain could not have told Hitler more plainly that Hitler could take what he wanted, and do whatever he wanted, without repercussions. Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and John Kerry just told Iran's dictators the same thing.
There was a time when the sight of an American flag promised nothing but instant and violent death to any pirate who made the slightest move to attack the vessel in question – rather than "take whatever you want," as it does under the Obama regime. This makes it more important than ever to elect somebody who will not tolerate for an instant violence against our country or our Armed Forces. That somebody is not among the Democratic Party's candidates.
William A. Levinson, P.E., is the author of several books on business management including content on organizational psychology, as well as manufacturing productivity and quality.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/01/barry_and_the_pirates.html#ixzz3xUBjdDdW
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
G'Nite, Quirk, Sweet Prince
.
ReplyDeleteRead the comments?
From people that read the AM? You're nutz.
I don't know what the US crews' mission was but chances are it wasn't an accident they were patrolling off Farsi. As for the ex-Seal's story it is pure speculation. The only thing it has going for it is the credulity of the dolts that read it over at the AT and the fact that you thought it was so important and credible that it had to be put in told type.
By the way, did you read the story to your wife? What did she say? I'm interested?
.
.
Delete...bold type...
.
You know that Obama did the right thing over the Iranian deal when all the Israeli Firsters, US Zionist controlled media, Neocons and GOP Likuds Force are in FMD (Full Meltdowntown Discombobulation).
ReplyDeleteTEHRAN, IRAN
Iran's President Hassan Rouhani said Sunday that the official implementation of the landmark deal reached between Tehran and six world powers has satisfied all parties except radical extremists.
Speaking before the parliament in comments broadcast live on state television, Rouhani said, "In (implementing) the deal, all are happy except Zionists, warmongers, sowers of discord among Islamic nations and extremists in the U.S. The rest are happy."
Rouhani said the deal has "opened new windows for engagement with the world."
A strong supporter of the agreement, Rouhani sent out a celebratory tweet calling it a "glorious victory" late Saturday night while the speeches in Vienna were still taking place.
Rouhani also said the deal was a win for all negotiating parties and all factions inside Iran. "Nobody has been defeated in the deal neither inside the country nor the countries that were negotiating with us," he said, referring to the United States, Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany.
Rouhani said Iran should use the expected influx of money and investments to spark the "economic mutation" of the country, creating jobs and enhancing quality-of-life for Iranian citizens. Iran has been suffering double-digit inflation and unemployment rates for years.
He also said Iran now needs political tranquility to best benefit from the new economic reality. "All should prevent any domestic and foreign trivialities that thwart us," he said. "Any irrelevant and diverting dispute is against national expedience."
Rouhani said his country needs up to $50 billion in foreign investment per year to reach its goal of eight-percent annual growth.
For Iran, long out in the economic cold over its contested atomic program, implementing the nuclear deal will be a welcome thaw.
More than $30 billion in assets overseas will become immediately available to the Islamic Republic. Official Iranian reports have set the total amount of frozen Iranian assets overseas at $100 billion.
A European oil embargo on Iran will end. Already, some 38 million barrels of oil are in Iran's floating reserves, ready to enter the market, according to the International Energy Agency.
NATION & WORLD
Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/news/nation-world/article55060800.html#storylink=cpy
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini issued a joint statement declaring the implementation of the JCPOA.
ReplyDeleteAfter the lifting of sanctions President Hassan Rouhani said Iran “has opened a new chapter” in its ties with the world.
Rouhani said everyone was happy with the accord, except those warmongers in the region.
“We Iranians have reached out to the world in a sign of friendliness, and leaving behind the enmities, suspicions and plots, have opened a new chapter in the relations of Iran with the world.”
The lifting of sanctions is “a turning point” for the economy, the president noted in a statement to the Iranian nation on Sunday morning.
Addressing Majlis on Sunday while submitting the draft national budget, Rouhani described the nuclear deal with world powers as a “golden page” in the country’s history which could help to transform the economy.
“The nuclear deal is an opportunity that we should use to develop the country, improve the welfare of the nation, and create stability and security in the region,” Rouhani stated.
The president also said the nuclear deal is the gift of the Iranian nation to the world who is against “violence and war”. He also added the deal is not a “victory of one faction over another”.
Mogherini said Tehran’s compliance with the terms of the JCPOA and the lifting of sanctions would contribute to improved regional and international peace and security, BBC reported.
The West hailed the implementation of the landmark nuclear deal. Only the Israeli prime minister said Iran wants to build a nuclear bomb.
“Without an appropriate reaction to every violation, Iran will realize it can continue to develop nuclear weapons, destabilise the region and spread terror,” Benjamin Netanyahu said.
HOW NEOCONS BANISHED REALISM
ReplyDeleteJanuary 16, 2016
The grip that neocons and liberal interventionists have on Official Washington’s opinion circles is now so strong that “realists” who once provided an important counterbalance have been almost banished from foreign policy debates, a dangerous dilemma that James W Carden explores.
By James W Carden
In a widely remarked upon article for the online version of Foreign Policy last week, Harvard’s Stephen Walt asked a very good question. Why, Walt asked, are elite outlets like the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times “allergic to realist views, given that realists have been (mostly) right about some very important issues, and the columnists they publish have often been wrong?”
Walt then went on to do something pundits are generally loath to do: he admitted that he’d didn’t really know the answer. This is not to say that I do, but I think Walt’s question is worth exploring.
Why indeed? My own hunch is that we realists are a source of discomfit for the Beltway armchair warrior class not so much because we have been right about every major U.S. foreign policy question since the invasion of Iraq, but because we dare to question the premise which undergirds the twin orthodoxies of neoconservatism and liberal interventionism.
The premise, shared by heroes of the Left and Right, is this: America, a “shining city on a hill” (John Winthrop, later vulgarized by Ronald Reagan) “remains the one indispensable nation” (Barack Obama) and deprived of America’s “benevolent global hegemony” (Robert Kagan) the world will surely collapse into anarchy.
This strain of messianic thinking has deep roots in the psyche of the American establishment and so, in a sense, neoconservatism, which is really little more than a latter-day Trotskyist sect, is as American as apple pie.
{...}
CHOSEN MUTHERFUCKERS
Delete{...}
Common though it is to trace, or conflate, the rise of American messianism to 1898 when the country first emerged as a global power, the cult of “American exceptionalism” has its roots in Puritan theology.
In his indispensable work, The Irony of American History, the Protestant theologian Reinhold Niebuhr cites a tract from 1650 in which the colonial leader Edward Johnson wrote that New England was “where the Lord would create a new heaven and a new earth, new churches and a new commonwealth together.” Niebuhr wrote that the Puritans had a “sense of being a ‘separated’ nation which God was using to make a new beginning for mankind.”
This strain of American solipsism was also noted with distaste by that most perceptive chronicler of American democracy, Alexis de Tocqueville who, in 1840, wrote that it was “impossible to conceive of a more troublesome and garrulous patriotism.”
The historian John Lamberton Harper has observed that the strain of messianic thinking was evident throughout the Nineteenth Century, reminding us that Indiana Sen. Albert Beveridge once claimed that the good Lord had “marked the American people as His chosen nation to finally lead in the regeneration of the world.”
And so on and so on.
{...}
{...}
ReplyDeleteThroughout the Twentieth Century, the messianic way of thinking became ever more firmly entrenched – particular among the governing class – as America continued what many felt was its inexorable rise to global supremacy. At the turn of the century prominent men of politics and letters such as Brooks Adams, Theodore Roosevelt and the geopolitical theorist Alfred MacKinder enthusiastically subscribed to the notion that “all signs point to the approaching supremacy of the United States.” Indeed, that this was so was an “inexorable decree of destiny.”
America’s entry into the First World War only deepened that sense of singularity. Here’s Walter Lippmann, who later in life became something like the dean of American realists, writing about President Woodrow Wilson in the New Republic in 1917: “other men have led nations to war to increase their glory, their wealth, their prestige … no other statesman has ever so clearly identified the glory of his country with the peace and liberty of the world.”
Decades later, during the Cold War, Lippmann regained his sanity, while TNR all but lost its. And indeed, it was during that 40-year-long “twilight struggle” between the U.S. and the USSR that the messianic consensus grabbed hold of the American mind and, to this day, has not let go. But the roots of that way of thinking, as we have seen, are deep and long predate the Cold War.
And so I would submit that the reason the three major American newspapers are “allergic to realism” is because they are part and parcel of an establishment that has, for well over a century now, been in thrall to a messianic vision of global supremacy.
====
James W Carden is a contributing writer for The Nation and editor of The American Committee for East-West Accord’s eastwestaccord.com. He previously served as an advisor on Russia to the Special Representative for Global Inter-governmental Affairs at the US State Department.
Everything the Neocons Said about Sailorgate Is Wrong
ReplyDeleteby Ali Gharib
You knew, when Iran detained 10 American sailors in its territorial waters just before President Obama delivered his State of the Union, that the reaction from the right was going to be ugly. But I must confess to watching the flood of tweets and other commentary from neoconservatives and their hawkish Washington allies with some awe: the neocons truly outdid themselves. This is not to say that the hawks aren’t without some valid points. Rather, they go so far beyond those points as to render their legitimate arguments as clownish asides amid a flurry of invective.
The cumulative reading of neoconservative commentary leaves you feeling that the incident in the Persian Gulf was something just short of a casus belli. Which isn’t really a surprise at all: much of the reactions were aimed at showing how terrible the nuclear deal with Iran, struck in July, really is. But few of these commentators have offered anything near a plausible alternative other than the increased prospect of war. Little of the commentary actually said Let’s go to war over this!—though Chris Christie came close in the most recent GOP presidential debate—but the intention was unmistakable.
A few themes among neoconservative reactions gave away the game. Take this tweet from the Israel Project‘s Omri Ceren: “I think a ‘hostile’ seizure of US sailors counts as an ‘attack.’” Or this one from the American Enterprise Institute‘s Danielle Pletka: “‘No nation dares to attack us or our allies because they know that’s the path to ruin.’ So what’s up with those sailors in #Iran?” Oh! It’s an “attack” on America! A hostile military act against our military! Raise the alarms: America under attack! Ruin them! One can safely presume that Ceren and Pletka do not believe that attacks on America should go unanswered, that such attacks should be responded to in kind. I can’t really imagine them uttering the sentence, Iran just attacked us but we should keep our powder dry and not attack them back. That feels out of character.
{...}
{...}
DeleteNOT HOSTAGES
Another theme that could not have been clearer, almost like it was coordinated on some neocon listserv, was that this was a “hostage” situation. Hudson‘s Michael Doran tweeted that Iran had “take(n) our people hostage.” Bloomberg View‘s Eli Lake, a friend of mine, who is capable of good reporting and sophisticated, if hawkish, analysis, wrote, after the incident had ended, “There is no hostage crisis now”—clearly trying to score some points by evoking the 1979 Iran Hostage Crisis. TIP’s Ceren, who tweeted up a veritable storm over the incident, was less subtle: “The 1970s called. They want their Iranian hostage crises back.”
Let’s be clear about a couple things. One: There. Was. No. Crisis. Sure, the Iranians could have saluted the US sailors and sent them on their way, but they were within their rights to seize them and see what was going on. Second: There. Were. No. Hostages. Lake, describing what went down during the encounter, said: “Iran’s handling of the situation violated international norms, and to pretend otherwise is—to borrow a phrase from sociology—to define deviancy down.” More on that in a moment, but while we’re on the subject of definitions, let’s look at an English one:
hostage noun hos·tage \?häs-tij\
1 a: a person held by one party in a conflict as a pledge pending the fulfillment of an agreement
b: a person taken by force to secure the taker’s demands
2: one that is involuntarily controlled by an outside influence
None of those definitions fits with what went down on Tuesday night in the Persian Gulf. To claim otherwise is misleading, even intentionally dishonest. But honesty is not the goal here: these comments are meant to evoke a difficult period in US-Iran relations, when Iranians indeed committed a horrific act and seized the American embassy, taking staffers hostage and—here’s the crucial point—issued demands, such as the extradition of the Shah to Iran. This is not what happened on Tuesday night. It was not, per Ceren, “Iran arbitrarily seizing US sailors” or a “kidnapping.” No one—apart from these neocons, by implication—disputes that the American sailors were taken into detention because they had transgressed the boundaries of Iranian territorial waters.
{...}
https://lobelog.com/everything-the-neocons-said-about-sailorgate-is-wrong/
DeleteSenator Tom Cotton Received Nearly $1 Mil To Oppose Iran Deal
ReplyDeleteThe group paid $960,250 to Cotton’s campaign, soon after which he lead the writing of an open-letter, signed by 47 Republicans, stating that a GOP White House would not adhere to any accords with Iran.
By American Herald Tribune | January 11, 2016
The Israel lobby paid off Republican Senators in Congress to oppose the deal. On Wednesday, it was revealed that Senator Tom Cotton, a Republican from Arkansas received nearly $1 million from the Emergency Committee for Israel, a U.S. based rightwing political advocacy organization.
The group paid $960,250 to Cotton’s campaign, soon after which he lead the writing of an open-letter, signed by 47 Republicans, stating that a GOP White House would not adhere to any accords with Iran.
Cotton has kowtowed to the Israel lobby in the past, just as most other Republican lawmakers in Congress. During a July visit to Israel Cotton claimed “I will stand with Prime Minister Netanyahu and Israel and work with my colleagues in Congress to stop this deal.”
Aside from obstructionism against the Iran deal, Netanyahu and the Israel lobby collude with Republican lawmakers to maintain the occupation of Palestine, securing huge sums of military aid and characterizing opponents as anti-Israel.
http://www.mintpressnews.com/senator-tom-cotton-received-nearly-1-mil-to-oppose-iran-deal/212632/
Why is Cotton not under arrest for treason?
ReplyDeleteRepublican presidential candidate Marco Rubio said his first trip abroad if elected would be to Israel.
ReplyDeleteAt a town hall meeting in Florida on Monday, Rubio was asked what his first foreign trip as president would be, Jewish Insider reported.
“Israel,” the Florida senator said to loud applause.
Fellow Republican candidate Jeb Bush refused to make the same pledge when asked in a recent Jewish Insider interview.
“I’ve been to Israel five times. I don’t have plans to visit there,” said Bush, a former Florida governor. “But what I’ve said is that on Day One, I would announce that the US Embassy would move from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.”
Mitt Romney also promised to visit Israel first while running for the Republican nomination in 2012.
“I will reaffirm as a vital national interest Israel’s existence as a Jewish state,” Romney said at the Republican Jewish Coalition’s Presidential Forum in December 2011, according to Jewish Insider.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/rubio-israel-trip-would-be-first-presidential-visit-abroad/
Marco Rubio fancies himself as a foreign policy expert. Rubio would be a complete disaster if he ever got the chance to control our foreign policy. Somebody needs to advise Sen. Rubio that playing Call of Duty doesn’t make him a defense expert.
ReplyDeleteFrom now on let’s just call him “Ruby”.
Good stuff Deuce! Ole Laggard Bob should read and try to understand the comments regarding the role of American Exceptionalism in foreign policy (Rat too). But alas Bob really is a laggard and won't even try.
ReplyDelete