The Saker: “Iran’s Reply: No War And No Negotiations”

Donate

The Saker: "Iran’s Reply: No War And No Negotiations"

Written by The Saker; Originally appeared on The Unz Review

We can all thank God for the fact that the AngloZionists did not launch a war on the DPRK, that no Ukronazi attack on the Donbass took place during the World Cup in Russia and that the leaders of the Empire have apparently have given up on their plans to launch a reconquista of Syria.  However, each of these retreats from their hysterical rhetoric has only made the Neocons more frustrated and determined to show the planet that they are still The Hegemon who cannot be disobeyed with impunity. As I wrote after the failed US cruise missile strike on Syria this spring, “each click brings us closer to the bang“.  In the immortal words of Michael Ledeen, “Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business“.  The obvious problem is that there are no “small crappy little countries” left out there, and that those who are currently the object of the Empire’s ire are neither small nor crappy.

Having now shown several times that for all its hysterical barking the Empire has to back down when the opponent does not cower away in fear, the Empire is now in desperate need to prove it’s “uniqueness” and (racial?) superiority.   The obvious target of the AngloZionist wrath is Iran.  In fact, Iran has been in the cross-hairs of the Empire ever since the people of Iran dared to show the AngloZionists to the door and, even worse, succeed in creating their own, national and Islamic democracy.  To punish Iran, the US, the USSR, France and all the other “democratic” countries unleashed their puppet (Saddam Hussein) and gave him full military support, and yet the Iranians still prevailed, albeit at a terrible cost.  That Iranian ability to prevail in the most terrible circumstances is also the most likely explanation for why there has not been an overt attack on Iran for the past four decades (there have, of course, there has been plenty of covert attacks during all these years).

I won’t list all the recent AngloZionist threats against Iran – we all know about them.  The bottom line is this: the US, Israel and the KSA are, yet again, working hand in hand to set the stage for a major war under what we could call the “Skripal-case rules of evidence” aka “highly likely“.  And yet,  in spite of all this saber-rattling, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has summed up Iran’s stance in the following words “there will be no war and no negotiations“.

First, let’s first look at Iranian rationale for “no negotiations”

The obvious: “no negotiations”

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has been very clear in his explanations for why negotiating with the USA makes no sense.  On his Twitter account he wrote:

The Saker: "Iran’s Reply: No War And No Negotiations"

The Iranian Supreme Leader even posted a special graphic summary to summarize and explain the Iranian position:

The Saker: "Iran’s Reply: No War And No Negotiations"

Finally, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei reiterated his fundamental approach towards the AngloZionist Empire:

The Saker: "Iran’s Reply: No War And No Negotiations"

The contrast between the kindergarten-level low-IQ bumbling hot air and threats coming out of the White House and the words of Ali Khamenei could not be greater, especially if we compare the words the two leaders decided to post all in caps;

Trump: To Iranian President Rouhani: NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!

Khamenei: THERE WILL BE NO WAR, NOR WILL WE NEGOTIATE WITH THE U.S..

Notice first that in his typical ignorance, Trump fails to realize that Hassan Rouhani is only the President of Iran and that threatening him makes absolutely no sense since he does not make national security decisions, which is the function of the Supreme Leader.  Had Trump taken the time to at the very least check with Wikipedia he would have understood that the Iranian President “carries out the decrees, and answers to the Supreme Leader of Iran, who functions as the country’s head of state“.  It is no wonder that Trump’s infantile threats instantly turned into an Internet meme!

In contrast, Khamenei did not even bother to address Trump by name but, instead, announced his strategy to the whole world.

The Saker: "Iran’s Reply: No War And No Negotiations"

Trump’s ALL IN CAPS meme

Of course, issuing  ALL IN CAPS threats just to be treated with utter contempt by the people you are trying to hard to bully and having your words become a cause of laughter on the Internet will only further enrage Trump and his supporters.  When you are desperately trying to show the world how tough and scary you are, there is nothing more humiliating as being treated like some stupid kid.  Therein also lies the biggest danger: such derision could force Trump and the Neocons who run him to do something desperate to prove to the word that their “red button” is still bigger than everybody else’s.

It is important to note here that making negotiations impossible is something the Trump administration seems to have adopted as a policy.  This is best illustrated by the conditions attached to the latest sanctions against Russia which, essentially, demand that Russia admit poisoning the Skripals.  In fact, all the western demands towards Russia (admitting that Russia is guilty for the Skripal case, that Russia shot down MH-17, that Russia hand over Crimea to the Ukronazis, etc.) are carefully crafted to make absolutely sure that Russia will not negotiate.  The sames, of course, goes for the ridiculous Pompeo demands towards the DPRK (including handing over to the USA 60 to 70 percent of its nukes within six to eight months; no wonder the North Koreans denounced a “gangster-like” attitude) or the latest US grandstanding towards Turkey.  Sadly, but the Neocon run media has successfully imposed the notion that negotiations are either a sign of weakness, or treason, or both.  Thus to be “patriotic” and “strong” no US official can afford to be caught red-handed negotiating with the enemy of the day.

Under these conditions, why would anybody want to negotiate with the US?

Frankly, the “no negotiations” approach makes perfectly good sense, and while the Iranians are the only ones who have openly said so, the Russians have hinted to the same on many occasions (see their words about the US being “non-agreement capable” or about US diplomats confusing Austria and Australia).  To any objective observer it should by now be completely obvious by now that a) the US cannot negotiate (due to intellectual, cultural and political limitations) and b) the US has no desire to negotiate.  This is, of course, a highly undesirable and dangerous situation, but it would only make things worse to pretend that civilized negotiations with the USA are possible.

So, if both sides agree on “no negotiations”, what about war?

The not so obvious: No war?

This is where Ali Khamenei’s stance is more puzzling, at least to me: when he says that there will be no war, does he mean that the US threats are not credible or does he mean that Iran has the means to deter a US attack?  His words make it sound like he is quite certain that there will be no war.  How can he be so sure?  I am especially amazed by the apparent Iranian confidence that the AngloZionists will not attack them when I compare it with the obvious Russian policy of actively preparing for war since at least 2014 (also see hereherehereherehere and here).  Of course, Iran has been preparing for war with the USA since almost 40 years now whereas the Russians only woke up to reality comparatively recently.  I see several potential explanations for Ali Khamenei’s statement (there might be more, of course):

  • Political: Iran is trying to demonstrate that it will do everything possible to avoid a war so that if a war should break out, it would be absolutely clear to everybody that Iran did not want it, Iran did not trigger it and the responsibility for the consequences fall entirely and solely upon the US and Israel.
  • Deception: Iran knows that a war is coming but is trying to pretend like it won’t to better conceal the war preparations and lure the Empire into a sense of complacency resulting into an ineffective/costly attack.
  • Intelligence: the Iranians might have intelligence indicating to them that all the US threats are just hot air spewed in order to appease the Israel Lobby and to look “patriotic” in preparation for the upcoming elections this Fall.
  • Miscalculation: the Iranians might underestimate the level of hubris, arrogance and stupidity of the US leadership and mistakenly conclude that since an attack on Iran makes no sense and the US cannot “win”, such an attack will therefore not happen.

Personally, every time I think of a possible US attack on Iran I think of the Israeli attack on Lebanon in 2006 which happened in spite of the fact that it was plainly visible to everybody that the Israelis were waltzing straight into a conflict which they could not win and which, in fact, resulted into one of the most abjects defeats in military history.  Conversely, while Hezbollah did win a truly historical victory, it also remains a fact that Hezbollah leaders did not expect the Israelis to launch a full-scale ground offensive.  Finally, history is full of examples of wars which were started in spite of all objective factors indicating that they would end up in disaster.

It seems to me that in purely military terms (not in political ones!) Israel could be seen as a stand-in for the USA and Hezbollah as a stand-in for Iran and that the outcome of any future US-Iranian war will be very similar to the outcome of the war in 2006, albeit on a much larger (and bloodier) scale.  I am confident that the folks in the Pentagon realize that, but what about their Neocon bosses – do they even care about Iranian or, for that matter, US casualties?  I highly doubt it: all they care about is their power and messianic ideology.

If it weren’t for it’s nuclear arsenal, the USA could be dismissed as a particularly obnoxious country lead by ignorant leaders with bloated and mostly ineffective armed forces.  Alas, the US nuclear arsenal is very real (and still very capable) and we know that top-level US Neocons have already considered using tactical nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state’s conventional force in the past.  In a twisted way, this makes sense: if you are a megalomaniac infused with a sense of messianic superiority then international or even civilizational norms of behavior are of no interest (or even relevance) to you.  Listening to US Presidents, pretty much all of them (but especially Obama and Trump) it is pretty clear that these folks consider themselves to be the Kulturträger and the Herrenvolk of the 21st century and their messianism is in no way less delusional than the one of their Nazi predecessors (or, for that matter, the one of the Popes of the past 1000 years).  And why would the people who nuked two Japanese cities under the (entirely fallacious) pretext of “shortening the war” (almost a humanitarian operation!) not do the same thing in Iran?

Of sure, they probably realize that using nukes will result in a massive political backlash, but they are confident that no matter what happens in the end, they will always be able to say “screw you!” to the rest of the planet.  After all, this is something which Israel and the USA have been doing with almost total inpunity for decades already – why would they stop now?  As for the fact that the Persian people have been dealing with all kinds of invaders since no less than 2500 years will not stop the AngloZionists from trying to crush them.  After all, having laid waste to a country which many see as the cradle of civilization, Iraq, why not do the same thing to Iran?  Iraq, Iran – what’s the difference, they are all just “sand niggers” and our red button is bigger than theirs, right?

Standing up to Shaytân-e Bozorg (almost alone?)

It would be a big mistake to dismiss the USA because of its incapable military or moral bankruptcy.  The truth is that in terms of aggregate national power, the USA still remains the most powerful country on the planet (even if we don’t include nuclear weapons).  Anyone doubting that needs to look how how the currencies of the countries the US is singles out for attack suddenly began slipping: the Russian ruble (which has since bounced back), the Iranian rial, the Venezuelan bolivar, the Turkish lira, etc.) or how little time it took Trump to bring the (admittedly spineless) Europeans to heel.  As for Russia, for all her military might, she remains only a semi-sovereign country in which the pro-US/pro-Israeli “Atlantic Integrationists” continue to try to sabotage (often successfully) everything Putin and his supporters are doing.  I would not place big hopes in China either, especially considering the lack of meaningful Chinese action in Syria where Russia and Iran did all the heavy lifting.  Sadly, but the only ally Iran can truly count on is Hezbollah.  And while Hezbollah is considered a “non-state actor”, it has a formidable capability to strike at the USA’s colonial masters, especially in terms of missiles.  This will not protect Iran, but it could serve as a very real deterrent to the Israelis, especially since Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah he has made it clear that Hezbollah more than capable of taking on Israel.  For the time being, the Israelis are already preparing for a re-match against Hezbollah and they are massing forces in the north to prepare for a war against Hezbollah.

Does that look to you like there will be no war against Iran?

I hope so.  But to me it very much looks like an attack is pretty much inevitable.  I have been predicting such an attack since 2007 and, so far, I have been completely wrong (and thank God for that!).  The very first article I ever wrote for my blog was entitled “Where the Empire meets to plan the next war” ended with the following words:

So count with yet another imperial war of aggression, a barrel of crude at over 100$ and oil shortages, rocketing inflation, job losses, a stagnant real estate market and stock exchange, and a national debt and government deficit which would make even Reagan proud. And plenty of dead Americans (nevermind the Iranians, right?).  But don’t worry: there will still be a huge supply of Chinese-made US flags to wave!

And yet, 11 years later, the AngloZionist attack which looked so imminent in 2007 has not happened yet.  Could it be that this time again an attack on Iran can be avoided?  Ayatollah Ali Khamenei appears to be very confident that it will not happen.  I am not so sure, but I fervently hope that he is right.

Donate

SouthFront

Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • Ilya Grushevskiy

    US just loudly committing suicide here people, nothing to see, move on..

  • Mohale

    praise singing for the empire at its best, non-dialectical, a oneway street of US power, which the author alleges is unassailable, pure crap if you ask me.

  • Douglas Houck

    The answer for why “No War” is Saker’s #1 list:
    “Political: Iran is trying to demonstrate that it will do everything possible to avoid a war so that if a war should break out, it would be absolutely clear to everybody that Iran did not want it, Iran did not trigger it and the responsibility for the consequences fall entirely and solely upon the US and Israel.”

    President Trump wants to show that economic war (sanctions) is a better and less expensive method to obtain his desired results. He has no desire to start a military conflict with Iran same as he had no plan to start with with the DPRK.

    The Iranians want to let eveyone know that they have no interest in armed conflict, but once it happens (not likely) they have no option (due to their limited air defense system) but to let everything fly (including Hezbollah’s missiles right after the shooting starts. Their strength is not enter into a protracted conflict with the US/Israel.

    • Promitheas Apollonious

      due to their limited air defense system…………………..

      maybe you should search this a little better.

      • peacelover

        Little better it is. But not sufficient at all. Iranians have no defence but only deterrence.

        • Promitheas Apollonious

          I did not ask you to answer me in the automatic pilot, but search it and know what you saying, not parroting what you read.

      • Douglas Houck

        I’d be happy to get your input.

        My understanding is the Iranians have a few S300 systems, which while capable, may or may not have the latest computer and software updates that the Russians have implemented as a results of their experiences in the Syrian war. Further that the Iranian air defence system is probably not going to withstand any mid- to long term attack from the US. The US always goes after a country’s air defense system and air fields first as they want unchallenged access to the skies. That being said, (and if I’m wrong on this I’m not going to be upset), that the best case for the Iranians is to let everything fly. If you are going to be pummeled anyway, you might as well give it your best shot.

        As I don’t see anyone from the US or it’s allies putting “boots on the ground”, it is only going to be an air war, and even that is unlikely, especially if the Iranians only respond and not initiate any military action.

        Thanks for the reply.

        • Promitheas Apollonious

          the only thing I can tell you is who ever relay on a weak iranian air defense, is in for a very rude awakening. Sharing or not my input is not the correct way for you to know matter of fact.

          I suggest you search it, as well search which country give Irans local war industry a lot of know how in missile technology. When you learn this info and conclude then is not me telling you but is you knowing for a fact.

    • Tommy Jensen

      Iran´s air defences are limited to 1 battery of S-300 which Russia after 10 years fiddling finally allowed Iran to buy.
      This battery S-300 defend Iran´s especially vulnerable targets and not Iran.

      Iran´s defences against US/Israel´s F-35 supermodern invisible stealth airfighters are small toy drones they intend to send out in thousands and thousands, plus red balloons the Iranians blow up with Pars gas.

  • seawolf

    Mr Saker I don’t really care about a stagnant real estate market and stock exchange, sorry to disappoint you. lol

  • peacelover

    Attack is no beneficial for the empire. Even it is not for one single human on the earth except the Zionists. Pray for peace peace and peace !

    • Promitheas Apollonious

      and then, attack, seem to be the only mode of operation they use.

      • peacelover

        But this attack will surely disturb the entire world economies overwhelmingly

        • Promitheas Apollonious

          it already disturb the world economies, for decades, now. Since the wars are done to be established whose the boss, the war is inevitable and there is no IF but only WHEN. To the ones who play the global game, their last worry right now is world economy, one that only effects you, the little people (tax slaves), by the way, never the players.

  • Manuel Flores Escobar

    Iran won the Syrian war…Hezbollah won the lebanon war…Saudis cannot win the Yemen war…so Anglo zionist cartel aim Iran….but like in North Korea….”the shadow of Vietnam is too long”..and USA Pentagon know it…to lose a war vs Iran could ignitate a civil war in USA…

    • Promitheas Apollonious

      you got a point in what you saying… but I dont understand, how a war lost to Iran can cause a civil war within US and not all the other wars they lost, at great cost, especially in the semi crazy to full crazy veterans they produced. Why a war lost to Iran yes but like the other wars they lost none of them come bombing their homes or in any way altering their every day routines, this time will trigger a civil war?

      It doesn’t compute.

      • FlorianGeyer

        I cannot recall a time when opinion in the US was so polarised though and such situations are more susceptible to civil wars I think.

        The US is long overdue for a civil war and irrespective of the winner, the devastation would keep the US quiet for decades to come :)

      • Manuel Flores Escobar

        months of war with Ormuz closed..means economic crisis…petrol barrel around 200 dollars..is enough to escalate the US deficit which need more dollars to buy the same barrels of petrol…and in economic crisis and be defeated in a war..always ignitate riots or a civil war!

    • John

      Hello Escobar. I generally agree with you. Here is what I see.

      As Gen. Patton was portrayed to have said in the movie ‘Patton’; Americans love a winner. The time of farting around like we did in Korea and Viet Nam, where time was more or less on the side of the MIC is over. They would not have years to produce a ‘winner’. The War on Terror has further erroded US capacity in all dimensions, reducing the window of support.

      One week of stuff blowing up over there in the GCC would commence the growling by the public. Two weeks of double or triple the gas prices, as well as other commodities skyrocketing, would initiate the screaming. After a month or two of fighting, lots of body bags coming home and no end in sight, would stir massive trouble for the elites who, Neocon or otherwise, like to do their thing.

      My take is that they could start it but, I doubt there is neither the will or resources to get across the finish line. That goes for Israel too. Once the real price of uncontrolled talk and indiscreet actions comes home to roost, it will be a whole new world for those who pressed the button. That includes what could happen to them personally and their families. Bullies only do it when it is for free. I wish well to all.

  • Jesus

    Saker’s fascination that US will use nuclear weapons unilaterally on Iran is void of some deterrent considerations he is not taking into account.
    If US uses 10-15 nuclear weapons on Iran, yes, they will destroy the targets, however, it will harden the Iranian resolve and response. Iran is not like Japan, exhausted after 4 years of costly wars it’s cities devastated by conventional bombing, and the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki being the icing on the cake.

    It is possible that Pakistan could help them to put together a few crude atomic weapons, or give them some from their own arsenal for an atomic response against US.

    Even without atomic weapons, Iran could obliterate US bases in ME, including carriers and give David’s Sling and Arrow a run for the money, and attack Israel directly in conjunction with Hezbollah, using “unorthodox” warheads.

    • Ivan Freely

      The Saker considers the US an agreement incapable, irrational actor. There’s no doubt the US can level Iran but there is no way they can hold onto any territory in a meaningful way. Once the US uses nukes, it’s over for them on the World stage. Blowback will be fast and hard for them and to any allies that supported the unwarranted attack.

      I seriously doubt Pakistan, a Sunni-based nation, would help Iran as they are close allies to Saudi Arabia. However, North Korea is the wild card as it depends on what the Chinese reaction will be.

      • Jesus

        Pakistan May be a Sunni nation, however, they have assumed an independent stance in relation to S. Arabia and did not want to intervene in Syria on their behalf.

    • as

      You forgot the population backlash for the use of WMD. You can be sure the Japanese would force their government to part way with the US and say goodbye to their nice accommodation in their territory.

  • potcracker2588

    hihi … maybe some noticed……the sentence “To punish Iran, the US, the USSR, France and all the other “democratic”
    countries unleashed their puppet (Saddam Hussein) and gave him full
    military support, and yet the…….”

    All in on the AGENDA……..USA, USSR etc….
    Nowadays no different…..USA,RUSSIA,CHINA.UK,EU etc….
    They are all in on the AGENDA
    A one world government, with jerusalem as its capital under jewish satanic leadership….

    ONLY those countries that DO NOT RECOGNIZE the illegal satanic state of israel are not into it.Syria,Lebanon,Iran,NK,malaysia…those countries are beiing hammerd now, be it militarily,economics or black ops(think it was a coincidence that malaysia airlines lost 3 planes in dubious way???that was a messgae ..”play ball or else”..)ps. no jew is allowd to enter malaysia even today 2018….
    All others are playing ball, under direct orders, a script like in a movie…….
    There is no good or bad…there is no good USA or good RUSSIA or bad USA or bad RUSSIA…there is only the AGENDA.
    Stay naiv and pay the price…of a one world government with jerusalem as its capital under satanic jewish leadership.

    peace , love and harmony

  • FlorianGeyer

    Iran has thousands more ballistic missiles than Hezbollah and enough to obliterate Israel and the oil infrastructure of Saudi Arabia. A few strikes on Dimona would also create nuclear chaos and with mass missile strikes, a few hundred at a time at least, the Patriots and Davids Slings would be overwhelmed.

    Couple this with the mobile missile launcher strategy of Iran and within hours Israel would be facing millions of very angry Palestinians as soon as the IDF Child killers run away and hide.

    Israel is a de facto ally with Iran as if Iran is blitzed, so will Israel be also :)

  • Ariel Cohen

    The ZioNazis don’t really give a hoot about goyim casualties, or how many lives are lost in a war against Iran. They hate Iran with a perfect hatred, because Iran is a match for Israel in so many ways. As always, the ZioNazis will get the dumb goyim to do their dirty work for them, but the main thing that has been holding them back is the pistol (Hezbollah) aimed at Israel’s head. Hezbollah’s 100,000+ missiles would devastate Israel, as compared to Iran’s limited number of long range Shahab 3’s which would suffer high levels of attrition before hitting Israel. Perhaps the 2006 attack on Lebanon was supposed to have cleared the way for an attack on Iran?

  • im cotton

    I don’t think there will be a war. The US military knows that war would be impossible to win absent a draft and a million plus combat soldiers necessary to defeat and occupy Iran. The US will continue its sanctions and continue to foster Iranian domestic disturbances, but there will be no color revolution. Sanctions will hurt but fail to bring Iran to heel.

    A US war would be supported by no one, not even Europe.

    • Brad Isherwood

      US Admin refused to sign another charter for the First National Bank
      Result. .. War of 1812

      Iraq was made BIS Central Bank system. .. after US invasion 2003,
      Same for Libya.

      Crazy Kim /NK is Satellite of China…who is BIS Central Bank system,
      Probable all the Nuke drum beating is Kabuki theatre so that Everyone in the region buys US military tech.

      Iran will be forced into something…
      It’s more profits all around if it’s war.
      Iran will not be invaded and occupied…
      Attacked?…

  • Jon

    Face some facts, fool. The USA remains the most desirable place to live on earth. People are trying to sneak into the USA, not sneak out of the USA.

    History has never seen a hegemonic world power behave as altruistically as has the USA.

    No one is perfect but there is a reason the USA offers its citizens the most liberty along with the highest standard of living on Earth. Our system isn’t perfect but it is best.

    Our sworn enemies would do well to remember that although we may not be able to save the world, despite our best efforts, we can certainly destroy completely anyone who tries to harm us.

    • DaBoiiiii

      It’s where the money and jobs are, and because it’s off fucking everyone else, it’s not at war on its own soil. Doesn’t change the fact that it is an evil piece of shit. Altruistic my ass, you a troll, a sack of shit, and a mutt.

      • Jon

        Yo, W.E.B., chill. Your handlers get nervous when you shake your cage.

        Money and jobs? Yes.

        But much more than that: security in home, hearth and Hashem. Free to speak, worship and work.

        A remarkably integrated society with free passage across thousand and thousands of miles of peaceful roadways; abundant food at summer picnics; a relatively well educated population capable of receiving public education (we all quit smoking tobacco; we quit using DDT; we seek a civil union to advance the common Good).

        American Exceptionalism is God’s Truth.

        • DaBoiiiii

          Lmao, it’s all beautiful aye? You’re full of shit. The good you do to yourselves doesn’t whitewash the evils you commit abroad. And when the balance of power shifts, as it always does, you will reap the hatred and vengence you have instilled in the hearts of so many.

  • Tommy Jensen

    No one are telling America who we must bomb or not bomb.

    If we wanna bomb, we bomb, and we bomb anyone and any shithole country that are in our way and dont understand when we say do it, you better do it. Otherwise you are running right into trouble and when I say trouble I mean real trouble, big time trouble man.

  • Lazy Gamer

    I hope it does not come to war. But the inevitable conclusion is that, war CAN be use as an instrument to fulfill certain objectives where deals have failed. I also wouldnt discount the possibility of irrationality on either side. Nor their misplaced confidence. So we are at a point of certainty with a chance to cross over on the uncertain. Surely there must be a price that someone is willing to pay for certainty, especially if objectives can be limited, and pawns can be sacrificed. And surely, it also must occur to businessmen that there are some things money cant buy and the costs of an endeavor can balloon later.

    • Ivan Freely

      Yup. War is politics by other means.

  • Richard

    The Turks are now using the same blustering ‘negotiating’ tactics as the Americans.

  • frankly

    “It seems to me that in purely military terms (not in political ones!) Israel could be seen as a stand-in for the USA and Hezbollah as a stand-in for Iran and that the outcome of any future US-Iranian war will be very similar to the outcome of the war in 2006, albeit on a much larger (and bloodier) scale. I am confident that the folks in the Pentagon realize that, but what about their Neocon bosses – do they even care about Iranian or, for that matter, US casualties? I highly doubt it: all they care about is their power and messianic ideology.”

    “Does that look to you like there will be no war against Iran?
    I hope so. But to me it very much looks like an attack is pretty much inevitable. I have been predicting such an attack since 2007 and, so far, I have been completely wrong (and thank God for that!).”

    See I like that, guy calls the shot as he sees it, admits he’s wrong and then thanks God for being wrong. If no one in the media alerts us to war being imminent, then war becomes more certain?

    What is unnerving to me is how less and less do those in power seem to even try to put up a façade. Now a days it’s like, “So you don’t like it, what are you gonna do?”