• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

U.S. Sizing Up Iran?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not if the Republican party has anything to do with it. As Senator John McCain said a good few years ago to the tune of Barbara Ann
"Bomb,bomb, bomb,
Bomb, Bomb Iran ..."

Him being a dumbass has nothing to do with this deal. Which president reneged first on the deal when it comes to the releasing of sanctions over inspections? Iran said that we did.
 
I was citing Gramps as a prime example of Republican Party idiocy. Any of the 47 Senators signing that ridiculous letter would have done.
 
So you think it is more smart to spend a bunch of time and money on a deal that does not legally exist yet? Fast tracking our way to less say and sway in govt. dealings. :(
 
So, do you think it is smart to condemn a treaty that does not legally exist in an act that comes perilously close to Sedition and is probably in breach of the Logan Act? Do you think it is smart to threaten violence as the only recourse? If you do then there is no more to be said to you on this subject.

May I suggest you contemplate the words of Major General Smedley Butler USMC
It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

In the World War a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.

How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?

Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few -- the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.
The entire article can be found at this link.
 
No I didn't agree with the letter or the fictional treaty. I was trying to focus on the part that does not involve your enemy. As a citizen I would like to actually see what the deal was. That was why I asked what your opinion of the deal breaking down before anybody can even vote on it. We are working with them in Iraq and obviously helping them, not some weird imperalist MIC that you allude to.
 
Iranian pistachios could soon be back on the global market now that a historic deal has been reached between Iran and six countries led by the United States. Iran agreed Tuesday to limit its nuclear capabilities in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions that would not only restart the flow of luxury Iranian products but also grant new allowances to Iranian professionals and students.

Although a deal has been struck, no guarantee exists that the sanctions will be lifted, as the International Atomic Energy Agency has to certify that Iran has complied with the deal’s terms, and the U.S. Congress has 60 days to approve the deal. The terms of the deal could take until the end of the year to implement, the Washington Post reported.

Still, if the deal is ultimately implemented and sanctions are lifted, Americans can expect to gain access to a number of exotic foreign products, including “Iranian-origin carpets and foodstuffs,” according to the text of the deal. Among those are Iranian pistachios, bannedfrom the United States since 2010 and from the world market since 2013, and world-renowned Iranian caviar, also banned under the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act of 2010.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/offbe...r-deal-means-for-pistachios-lovers/ar-AAcXjY8
 
US had extensive contact with Ayatollah Khomeini before Iran revolution
Documents seen by BBC suggest Carter administration paved way for Khomeini to return to Iran by holding the army back from launching a military coup

Friday 10 June 2016 19.25 BST

Iranian leaders have reacted with fury to reports that newly declassified US diplomatic cables revealed extensive contacts between Ayatollah Khomeini and the Carter administration just weeks ahead of Iran’s Islamic revolution.

It was previously known that Ruhollah Khomeini, the charismatic leader of the Iranian revolution, had exchanged some messages with the US through an intermediary while living in exile in Paris. But new documents seen by the BBC’s Persian service show he went to a great lengths to ensure the Americans would not jeopardise his plans to return to Iran – and even personally wrote to US officials.

The BBC’s reporting suggests that the Carter administration took heed of Khomeini’s pledges, and in effect paved the way for his return by holding the Iranian army back from launching a military coup.

The BBC Persian service obtained a draft message Washington had prepared as a response to Khomeini, which welcomed the ayatollah’s direct communications, but was never sent.

The corporation also published a previously released but unnoticed declassified 1980 CIA analysis titled Islam in Iran, which shows Khomeini’s initial attempts to reach out to the US dated back to 1963, 16 years before the revolution. ...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ration-iran-revolution?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
 
The US may be still sizing up Iran but the Iranian Theocracy is sizing up trade union activists and imprisoning them.

Iran injustice
Three prominent activists are on hunger strike in an Iranian prison. They are protesting against unjust sentences handed down to them by the Islamic courts. They are in urgent need of solidarity, especially from trade unionists and democrats internationally.

The three are: Reza Shahbi - a member of the coordinating committee of the syndicate of the Vahed Bus Company (Tehran); Abbas Abdi - a member of the executive committee of teachers’ guild; Mahmoud Beheshti Langaroudi - former spokesperson of the teachers’ guild.

Shahabi, Abdi and Langaroudi have had these sentences imposed as a result of their activities in defence of their fellow workers. Worryingly, the hunger strike is starting to have a serious effect on their health and is now endangering their lives. Reza Shahabi, for example, has refused food for more than six weeks.

We call on labour activists and defenders of the working class worldwide to do everything they can to save the lives of these leading activists and to build solidarity with them. We also express our grave concern for the lives of these labour activists and urge them to consider ending their hunger strike. The essential work they undertake in defence of thousands of workers in Iran is vital.

To add your name to the signatories of this letter, please email Hands Off the People of Iran at [email protected]

Yassamine Mather
Hopi

http://hopoi.org/
 
Yassamine Mather reports on the protests in Iran.

Yassamine Mather
4 hrs ·
Protests by impoverished , hungry Iranians

There has been a considerable amount of fake news about the demonstrations that started in Mashad and other towns in Khorassan province on the 28th of December 2017 and is continuing three days later in Tehran . On the whole the protesters grievances have been reasonably clear, it started with opposition to price rises, basic food prices have sky rocketed in the last few weeks.

These larger protests came in the aftermath of a number of protests by workers in opposition to
job losses, notably Ney Shekar workers in Khouzestan province.

Price of egg has gone up by 40% in a matter of days. Mass unemployment is worse in provinces where the protests started, the rate of inflation is out of control and as a result of relative diversity of internal media (be it limited to factions of the regime) Iranians are aware of multi billion dollar corruption scandals in all factions of the regime, both Rouhani’s government and senior ayatollahs associated with more conservative factions of the regime, not to forget the scandals associated with former president Ahmadi Nejad, those currently facing judicial , criminal cases in Iranian tribunals.

Contrary to initial claims by Rouhani allies, the protests were definitely not part fo a plot by ‘conservative factions’ to discredit his government , the slogans soon became political and the main target was ayatollah khamenei. In the last few days the most common political slogans were against the supreme leader : ‘ death to dictator’, Khameni haya kon mamlekato raha kon’ ( Khamenei have shame, leave the country alone’ to the more polite slogans : "Seyed Ali (Khamenei), excuse us. Now we have to stand up." ‘requesting Khameni to leave power. In Rasht there were anti Rouhani slogans but they soon became anti dictatorship a clear reference to unelected supreme leader. ...

https://www.facebook.com/yassamine.mather/posts/10100220985048221
 
Unlike the Arab Spring, which was was always going to turn out exactly as it did, these protesters are explicitly rejecting the Islamic Republic. Women removing their hijabs etc. Plus Iran has an educated population which is far less religious than its neighbours.

A Persian Spring could result in a secular government in place which respects human rights. Fingers crossed.
 
Unlike the Arab Spring, which was was always going to turn out exactly as it did, these protesters are explicitly rejecting the Islamic Republic. Women removing their hijabs etc. Plus Iran has an educated population which is far less religious than its neighbours.

A Persian Spring could result in a secular government in place which respects human rights. Fingers crossed.
I hope you are right.
Perhaps the only reason why they are more educated and open-minded than neighbouring countries is because plenty of western-style schools and universities were built by the Shah of Iran. That legacy still remains to some extent.
 
I hope you are right.
Perhaps the only reason why they are more educated and open-minded than neighbouring countries is because plenty of western-style schools and universities were built by the Shah of Iran. That legacy still remains to some extent.

I'm hopeful about this but the Islamic Regime is deeply rooted in Iranian society. The Revolutionary Guard is likely to remain on the side of the Mullahs as will other militias. The Army is less certain though.
 
Lets not get too starry-eyed about Iran under the Shah.

Yassamine Mather
14 hrs ·
kp1VQpQrKDK.png

When it came to repression let us remember that the shah's security force , SAVAK , shot Catherine Adl, the paralysed daughter of his own physician , while she was sitting in a wheel chair, for opposing inequality and injustice in Iran. You can guess what he did to opponents he didn’t know.


Yassamine Mather
14 hrs ·
kp1VQpQrKDK.png

it might be worth reminding those Iranians who think under the Shah there was no poverty or hunger a quote from Empress Farah Diba, who in true Marie Antoinette style , told the nation they would benefit from vegetarianism , when advisers told the court that ordinary people complained they couldn’t afford buying meat.


https://www.facebook.com/yassamine.mather
 
Another report.

A spark of hope in Iran: why 2017 isn’t 2009

Protests, rallies and demonstrations have engulfed Iran since Thursday. Beginning on a relatively small scale in the provincial city of Mashhad in Eastern Iran, where a thousand protesters voiced their grievances over their dire economic situation, the demonstrations quickly spread to a number of provincial towns. By December 30th, this oppositional sentiment had arrived in Tehran, the Iranian capital.

At the time of writing (Sunday December 31st), protests have sprouted up in more than 30 towns and cities in – something that has surprised both the Islamic regime itself and analysts inside and outside of the country. For although dispersed protests and small-scale strikes against Iran’s spiralling inflation, huge unemployment and the lack of payment of wages and pensions have been a rather common occurrence during the past few months, the rapid growth and radicalisation of the recent protests has created scenes which we have not witnessed since the mass mobilisations in the wake of the contested presidential election in 2009.

Although it is far too early to provide a comprehensive analysis of the ongoing events, it is evident that thus far the focal point of the unrests has been economic in nature. Alongside the above-mentioned economic problems, there has recently been a significant rise in the price of basic daily goods, which has exacerbated the gulf between the rich and poor. Calling for support for the movement, the Iranian labour movement leader Jafar Azimzadeh argued that, given the terrible social conditions faced by most Iranians, there is a certain inevitability to what we are currently witness: the toxic combination of neo-liberal privatisation and Islamic corruption is exacting a heavy toll.

The growing inequality in Iran is becoming evident not only to the working classes of the towns and cities (particularly those living in the harsher conditions in the provincial regions inhabited by a variety of national and ethnic minorities), but to the lower sections of the urban middle classes as well. All appear to be outraged by the Iranian state’s seeming refusal to do anything to address their plight. It is for this reason that, as the protests continue, their focus appears to be moving beyond economics. Protest slogans such as ‘Bread, Work, Freedom!’, Capitalist Clergy: Give us Back our Wealth!’, ‘The Unpaid Wages of the Retired are Hidden under the Clergy’s Cape’ or ‘The Supreme Leader is living like a God, Whilst the People are Begging’ highlight how the protesters are laying the blame for their economic plight squarely at the feet of the Islamic Regime. And despite the claims of almost all reports in the mainstream press outside of Iran, such oppositional energy is clearly aimed at the IRI (Islamic republic of Iran) state as a whole, not one or other of its ‘principalist’ or the so-called ‘reformist’ factions. ...

http://www.iranunseen.com/a-spark-of-hope-in-iran-why-2017-isnt-2009/
 
Yassamine Mather reports on the protests in Iran.

Yassamine Mather
4 hrs ·
Protests by impoverished , hungry Iranians

There has been a considerable amount of fake news about the demonstrations that started in Mashad and other towns in Khorassan province on the 28th of December 2017 and is continuing three days later in Tehran . On the whole the protesters grievances have been reasonably clear, it started with opposition to price rises, basic food prices have sky rocketed in the last few weeks.

These larger protests came in the aftermath of a number of protests by workers in opposition to
job losses, notably Ney Shekar workers in Khouzestan province.

Price of egg has gone up by 40% in a matter of days. Mass unemployment is worse in provinces where the protests started, the rate of inflation is out of control and as a result of relative diversity of internal media (be it limited to factions of the regime) Iranians are aware of multi billion dollar corruption scandals in all factions of the regime, both Rouhani’s government and senior ayatollahs associated with more conservative factions of the regime, not to forget the scandals associated with former president Ahmadi Nejad, those currently facing judicial , criminal cases in Iranian tribunals.

Contrary to initial claims by Rouhani allies, the protests were definitely not part fo a plot by ‘conservative factions’ to discredit his government , the slogans soon became political and the main target was ayatollah khamenei. In the last few days the most common political slogans were against the supreme leader : ‘ death to dictator’, Khameni haya kon mamlekato raha kon’ ( Khamenei have shame, leave the country alone’ to the more polite slogans : "Seyed Ali (Khamenei), excuse us. Now we have to stand up." ‘requesting Khameni to leave power. In Rasht there were anti Rouhani slogans but they soon became anti dictatorship a clear reference to unelected supreme leader. ...

https://www.facebook.com/yassamine.mather/posts/10100220985048221

An updated and expanded version of the above statement.

PROTESTS IN IRAN JANUARY 2018
JANUARY 1, 2018 Y.MATHER LEAVE A COMMENT
Protests by impoverished , hungry Iranians
http://hopoi.org/2018/01/protests-in-iran-january-2018/
 
Paul Mason puts things in a nutshell.


Journalist, film-maker and author of Postcapitalism — A Guide to Our Future
Paul Mason Jan 2

Bullet points on the Iranian revolt
…on the basis of limited evidence and sparse independent journalism for now

1. There is a split in the ruling elite. The masses know the Rouhani wing can’t crack down without strengthening its hardline enemies. Numerous statements and briefings from 2009/Green movement reformists show they are not enthusiastic about the revolt

2. The economic deal the elite made with the masses on the basis of the JCPOA/BARJAM in 2015 is not working; there’s not enough foreign investment and …

3. …the continued subventions to (a) foreign wars (b) the Islamist institutions (c ) corrupt IRGC-run businesses are draining the dynamism of theocratic capitalism to the extent that it can’t even deliver to its own mass base. ...

https://medium.com/mosquito-ridge/bullet-points-on-the-iranian-revolt-16bfd91ec1e1
 
Another analysis of the protests in Iran.

What’s been happening in Iran – and a call for support!
The Clarion editors January 5, 2018
By Kaveh Abbasian (Kaveh is an Iranian socialist who left the country in 2008 due to the widespread crackdown then taking place on left-wing students)

During the last ten days, the people of Iran proved that the memory and dreams of their 1979 revolution is still alive and kicking! That although betrayed and hijacked, the social demands of that revolution is still valid and can cause mass protests!

These protests are the most wide-spread protests against the entirety of the establishment since 1979.

The neoliberalisation of Iran’s economy had started during the post-war government of Hashemi Rafsanjani. However, Rouhani’s current “moderate” government has increased the speed of this process to an extent that it has become almost impossible for the large working-class population to continue living.

Lifting the sanctions which was a result of Iran-US negotiations, did not happen to benefit the people. It benefitted foreign companies and a corrupt elite of Iranian businessmen who had ties with the state or were outright part of the state.

During the last year there were hundreds of small civil protests around the country. Those protests were entirely working-class protests about unpaid wages, living standards, unemployment etc. None of those protests met an adequate answer by the government. ...

https://theclarionmag.org/2018/01/05/whatsbeenhappeninginiranandacallforsupport/
 
Iran was recently hit by a terrorist attack in Ahvaz, in the region of Kuzistan. Western media tok the easy option by merely lazily commented that Daesh took responsability, conveniently omitting to mention another damning claim, by an United Arab Emirates official. In fact, the bombing seems to be the first step in an escalation in a larger war against Iran by Gulf states and their allies :
http://www.voltairenet.org/article203160.html
The Emirates claims responsibility for the attack in Ahvaz
Voltaire Network | 28 September 2018
ligne-rouge.gif


On 22 September, an attack during a military parade killed 24 people and wounded 60 others, in Ahvaz (Iran).

Ahvaz is the capital of the Iranian Arab region of Khuzestan. On 22 September 1980, the Iraqi President Saddam Hussein tried to annex this population to Iraq. This unleashed a war between Iran and Iraq. At the time, the overwhelming majority of Iranian Arabs opposed the foreign Iraqi invasion. The military procession on September 22 2018 marked the anniversary of this terrible war, funded by the West against the Khomeini Revolution.

Various groups are regularly organizing protests and attacks in Khuzestan:
• the Party of Democratic Solidarity of Ahvaz (supported by the US CIA and the British MI6), is trying to link up different non-Persian minorities in Iran.
• the Party for Liberation of Ahvaz (supported by those who supported the long deceased Saddam Hussein).

Responsibility for this week’s attack was claimed by two groups: the Popular Democratic Front of the Arabs of Ahvaz (which allegedly groups different pro-Iraqi organizations) and by Daesh (which published a video of the kamikaze before the action).

Let us recall that the Hussein regime in Iraq abandoned the state following a secular path by its programme “Return to Faith”. Following the toppling of Saddam Hussein and the US invasion, members of the Iraqi Baath Party were banished from national politics and the national army was dissolved, while Iraq was governed by the Shiites linked to Iran. As the former Vice President, Ezzat Ibrahim Al-Douri the Grand Master of the Nachqbandis Order (a Sufi brotherhood) formed an alliance with the CIA and MI6 to integrate its men into Daesh and to obtain its revenge against the Shiites. This explains how both claims of responsibility led, by different paths, to Washington and London. This is why the Iranian Republic of Iran immediately accused the Westerners and the Gulf States, that sponsor of terrorism, of being responsible for the attack.

However, Professor Abdulkhaleq Abdulla, one of the advisers to the Crown Prince of the United Arab Emirates, declared that his country has succeeded in bringing war to the territory of Iran, claiming, thus, publicly a role in the attack. This type of declaration is not very surprising in the Middle East. In 2015, the Turkish President, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, had publicly congratulated the attacks that had been sponsored in Europe.

The United Arab Emirates position on Iran changed all of a sudden. This was not due to the war in Yemen (where they were fighting against the Hutis supported by Iran) but by the rupture of the Iran deal (JCPoA). Over the last two decades, the Emirates has increased its wealth through measures that the Islamic Republic had to adopt to buffer the US sanctions applied on Iran. The port of Dubai, became the centre of this traffic.

With this change, the two countries became enemies and the bilateral dispute over the possession of an islet situated in the Arab-Persian Gulf was reopened.

The Iranian President, Sheikh Hassan Rohani, promised the Emirates a terrible response, forcing the Emirates Minister of Foreign Affairs, Anwar Gargash, to back off and to deny the prior declarations of the adviser to the Crown Prince.

Translation
Anoosha Boralessa


See also :
https://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/ahvaz-terror-attack-iran-may-drag-us-larger-war-1037509599
The Ahvaz terror attack in Iran may drag the US into a larger war
Trita Parsi
Saturday 22 September 2018 23:16 UTC
Sunday 23 September 2018 9:22 UTC
......
The terrorist attack, which was first claimed by an Arab separatist group with alleged connections to Saudi Arabia, the Ahvaz National Resistance, did not occur in a vacuum. Iran's regional rivals, particularly Saudi Arabia and the UAE, have increasingly taken their decades-long behind-the-scenes pressure on the US to bomb Iran into the open.

What used to be said in private is now increasingly declared in public. Moreover, these monarchies are no longer limiting themselves to pushing the US to take military action, but are announcing their own readiness to attack Iran.

Saudi and UAE threats towards Iran
Only a year ago, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman explained in an interview that Saudi Arabia would take the fight to "inside Iran".

"We won't wait for the battle to be in Saudi Arabia," he said. "Instead, we will work so that the battle is for them in Iran." His statement was widely interpreted as a sign that Riyadh would dramatically escalate tensions with Iran and intensify its support for various armed groups opposing the government in Tehran.

Abdulkhaleq Abdulla, an adviser to the Abu Dhabi government, justified the Ahvaz attack on Twitter, arguing that it wasn't a terrorist attack and that "moving the battle to the Iranian side is a declared option". Attacks of this kind, he ominously warned, "will increase during the next phase".

If the terrorist attack in Ahvaz was part of a larger Saudi and UAE escalation in Iran, their goal is likely to goad Iran to retaliate and then use Tehran's reaction to spark a larger war and force the US to enter since Riyadh and Abu Dhabi likely cannot take on Iran militarily alone (indeed, after spending roughly $6bn a month, they have failed to defeat the Houthi guerillas in Yemen).

If so, the terrorist attack is as much about trapping Iran into war as it is to trap the US into a war of choice. As former secretary of defense Bob Gates said in 2010, the Saudis "want to fight the Iranians to the last American".

Iran hawks inside Trump's administration
But the Trump administration may not be innocent bystanders to such a scheme. Trump's own actions and the close coordination we have seen between his administration, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Israel on Iran raises the prospects of a different explanation: one in which the US itself is actively pushing its allies and being pushed by its allies towards war with Iran.

The Ahvaz attack comes only one day after Secretary of State Mike Pompeo issued a strong threat to Iran, declaring it would be held "accountable" if there were any more attacks on US consulates in Iraq.
 
Last edited:
What would motivate the UAE to attack Iran using terrorist methods?
Apart from long-standing arguments over a few islands after the British pulled out of the area, they have no major conflicts (AFAIK).
 
The best solution would be to ask them... Well, why are the USA acting so foolishly with Iran, despite that it is not in their interest ? Why have so many Western and Gulf powers acted so awkwardly in the last years ? The fact is that they have taken many irrational decisions, motivated by reasons that are beyond me, but which they nonetheless consider as valid enough to justify such actions.
 
The best solution would be to ask them... Well, why are the USA acting so foolishly with Iran, despite that it is not in their interest ? Why have so many Western and Gulf powers acted so awkwardly in the last years ? The fact is that they have taken many irrational decisions, motivated by reasons that are beyond me, but which they nonetheless consider as valid enough to justify such actions.

I'm at a loss. The Western powers have learned nothing, they keep looking for "moderate" islamist militias to back and end up with failed states.
 
The problem is that Western powers should not be supporting any rebels and trying to change regimes. Their policy of manufacturing failes states seems also to be the goal, as failes states are weak and easy to control.
And the US give another proof that they are the rogue state : they lost to the ICC relating to their violations of the 1955 US-Iran Treaty of Amity, so they answer by cancelling the Treaty. Although it is not so obvious that they could get away with it :
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2018/1...-treaty-that-gave-the-court-jurisdiction.html
October 03, 2018
Iran Sanctions - U.S. Responds To Court Order By Canceling Treaty That Gave The Court Jurisdiction
Earlier today the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a provisional judgment (pdf, 29 pages) against some of the U.S. sanction against Iran. The ruling is a preliminary injunction over urgent humanitarian issues that will later be followed by a final judgment.

The U.S. responded by canceling the treaty the gave the court jurisdiction over the case.

The ICJ is the main judicial organ of the United Nations and settles legal disputes between member states. The rulings of the court, based in The Hague, are binding. But there is no global police force that can make the U.S. government follow the court's ruling.

Nevertheless the judgment sets a precedent that other courts will use when more specific cases against the U.S. sanctions against Iran come up. A company that loses business because of the sanctions may sue the U.S. over financial losses. An ICJ ruling on the illegality of the U.S. sanctions will then be used by a local court, even an American one, as reference.

The core of the ruling says:

THE COURT,
Indicates the following provisional measures:

(1) Unanimously,

The United States of America, in accordance with its obligations under the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights, shall remove, by means of its choosing, any impediments arising from the measures announced on 8 May 2018 to the free exportation to the territory of the Islamic Republic of Iran of

(i) medicines and medical devices;
(ii) foodstuffs and agricultural commodities; and
(iii) spare parts, equipment and associated services (including warranty, maintenance, repair services and inspections) necessary for the safety of civil aviation;

(2) Unanimously,

The United States of America shall ensure that licences and necessary authorizations are granted and that payments and other transfers of funds are not subject to any restriction in so far as they relate to the goods and services referred to in point(1);

(3) Unanimously,

Both Parties shall refrain from any action which might aggravate or extend the dispute before the Court or make it more difficult to resolve.

The provisional judgment, comparable to an injunction, was issued because of the imminent humanitarian damage the U.S. sanctions cause to Iran. The final judgment may take a year and is likely to be much wider. After today's unanimous ruling the general direction of the outcome is not in question.

The U.S. had claimed that the the court has no jurisdiction over the issue of its sanctions against Iran.

Iran argued that U.S. sanctions are in violations of the Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights between Iran and the United States of America (pdf), which was signed at Tehran on 15 August 1955. That treaty gave the ICJ jurisdiction over disputes between the two countries in all issues related to it.

The court accepted Iran's view.

U.S. Secretary of State Pompeo just held a press conference in which he announced that the U.S. is now canceling the 1955 treaty. His statement was full of bluster and lies:

The United States on Wednesday called an international court ruling against its Iran sanctions a defeat for Tehran as it terminated a 1955 treaty on which the case was based.
...
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo noted that the UN court did not rule more broadly against US sanctions and he insisted that the United States already exempted humanitarian goods from the sanctions.
"The court's ruling today was a defeat for Iran. It rightly rejected all of Iran's baseless requests," Pompeo told reporters.

The preliminary injunction is obviously a victory for Iran. The court has not yet judged on the wider issue of the U.S. sanctions. Having read the argument I am convinced that the final judgment will only confirm this win. The ruling is a big loss for the Trump administration. It shows the world that the U.S. is the one and only entity which is in breach of the 1955 treaty, the nuclear agreement with Iran (JCPOA) and the unanimous resolution of the UN Security Council endorsing the nuclear deal.

Pompeo's announcement of the canceling of the treaty is somewhat schizophrenic. It accepts the ruling and transgresses on it:

  • The U.S. would not have canceled the treaty without the court's judgment that is based on the treaty. With today's canceling, or the announcement thereof, the U.S. admits that the court intervention based on the treaty is legally correct. This contradicts its earlier argument.
  • The canceling of the treaty today transgresses on the courts judgment. Measure three of the court's ruling orders the parties to not make the issue more difficult to resolve. Canceling the treaty now makes the case more difficult and aggravates and extends the dispute in violation of the court order.
The U.S. is in fact mocking the court. It is unlikely that any court will accept the clearly upcoming U.S. claim that the treaty no longer exists, that the ICJ has lost jurisdiction over the case and that its orders can thus be ignored. One can not simply change a contract after being found guilty of violating it. The case will be going to a final judgment under the 1955 treaty because that set the legal status when the case was brought to the court.

Pompeo and other will undoubtedly argue that the ruling does not matter for the U.S. and that transgressing it will have no costs. That underestimates the effect of such a ruling on lower national courts. It will be them that will judge about the seizure of U.S. assets when claims of economic damage are brought up against the U.S. and its sanction regime.

The case will also weigh on the global opinion. It makes it more difficult for other governments to follow the U.S. sanction regime.
 
Last edited:
Not out of the water yet:
The White House’s national security team last fall asked the Pentagon to provide it with options for striking Iran after a group of militants aligned with Tehran fired mortars into an area in Baghdad that is home to the U.S. Embassy, the Wall Street Journal reported Sunday.
The request by the National Security Council, which is led by John Bolton, sparked deep concern among Pentagon and State Department officials, the newspaper reported, citing current and former U.S. officials.
Source:
 
I'm not saying it's starting, but when the history books are written this kind of thing is described as the stage at which words turned into actions and those actions begat counter-actions.

In a statement, Mr Bolton said: "The United States is deploying the USS Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group and a bomber task force to the US Central Command region to send a clear and unmistakeable message to the Iranian regime that any attack on United States interests or on those of our allies will be met with unrelenting force."
SOURCE:​
 
What has Iran done lately to justify rolling out the carrier?
 
What has Iran done lately to justify rolling out the carrier?

"The Quds Force (Persian: سپاه قدس‎ sepāh-e qods)[2] is a unit in Iran's Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) directed to carry out unconventional warfare and intelligence activities and responsible for extraterritorial operations.[3] It is commanded by Major General Qasem Soleimani. The Quds Force supports non-state actors in many foreign countries that include Lebanese Hezbollah, Hamasand Palestinian Islamic Jihad in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, Yemeni Houthis, and Shia militias in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan.[3]The United States has designated the Quds Force a supporter of terrorism since 2007."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quds_Force

Terrorists using EFP IEDs - a Quds Force trademark - killed approximately 200 US soldiers in Iraq.

They are also major backers and funders of Hamas, currently doing its best to murder Israeli civilians.

Iran has a finger in a lot of very unsavoury pies.

maximus otter
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top