35 thoughts on “Anti-Iran Media Drumbeat, Fueled by Israel, Increases as Deal Deadline Nears – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.

  1. Obama — ” fearing the exposure of CIA-Mossad collusion along with deliberate leaks of secret intelligence material to UANI, stopped the case dead in its tracks. Noah Feldman notes the political peculiarities of this case and why it posed such a nest of vipers to the Obama administration.”

    What I want to know is how a civil lawsuit threatens USA’s national security. Surely a lawsuit depends chiefly on benign papers. Of course, here, a demand for “discovery” from someone alegedly in receipt of government secrets might turn up (or attempt to turn up) government secrets, but the USA could step in to frustrate THAT small matter of “discovery” rather than to terminate the entire lawsuit. And the refusal of the USA to allow the documents to be made public could itself be admitted in court as proof of plaintiff’s claims.

    In my opinion, however, the discovery should be allowed to go forward. Or, in the alternative, a LOT of people should be prosecuted fro leaking government secrets to these folks. USA tries to have it both ways: Anti-Iran folks can publish what they claim to be leaked “secrets” but lawsuits cannot get close enough to these claimed leaks to verify (or falsify) the anti-Iran claims.

  2. While I don’t understand how the world lives with the double standards of closing an eye in regards to Israeli nuclear program, I completely don’t understand people who claim there are ‘no signs’ I ran program would lead to a bomb. Does anyone really believe this?

    Seems like people immediately take a side depends on how they perceive the state of Israel. The question, ‘whether or not the west should accept nuclear Iran?’ becomes secondary.

    1. @Tankist: There are no “signs” (that is actual physical evidence) that Iran’s program is designed to produce a bomb or that it intends to produce a bomb. What almost every reasonable observer believes is Iran, along with Japan & several other states who’ve already done this, intends to pursue research & some production that would allow it to put together such a bomb if it needed to do so in a national emergency. But that it has no intent ever to actually produce such a weapon unless such circumstances were to come about. As I wrote, Japan already follows this approach. This means that Iran doesn’t want a bomb nor does it want to produce one. But that if the nation faces an existential threat, that it would reluctantly turn to one in order to protect the homeland.

      If we accept Japan’s approach there is no reason to treat Iran any differently.

      1. @RS:

        Japan don’t attacking directly (see Argentine Israelite Mutual Association building attack and Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires) or via proxies other states in a region, and don’t denies Holocaust.
        That’s enough!

        1. @ nikkor1: Israel attacks ‘directly & by proxy’ other states in the region and already HAS 200 nukes. But you choose to ignore that!

          As for denying the Holocaust, this is a lie. Iran’s leadership does NOT deny the Holocaust. If you print lies here again you will be moderated or banned.

          1. It is funny to have in the same comment about a denial about Iran take on the holocaust which is well documented and the number of Israeli nuclear heads which is completely unsourced and based on thin air.

          2. @ Tankist: No one in the Rouhani regime has ever denied the Holocaust. So this claim is a lie.

            As for Israeli WMD, if you believe there are none, you are either disingenuous, ignorant, an idiot or a liar, or some combination thereof.

          3. Ahmenijad was recently the president and he was very vocal about his opinion.
            As per israeli war heads, I didn’t say we have none (not that I have any concrete info), but rather the number ‘200’ was pulled out of nowhere and is completely baseless. Any number between 20 to 1,000 is as reliable as your 200

          4. @Tankist: Russia was “recently” a Soviet empire. What a difference a few yrs can make, eh? Is Ahmadinejad still pres.? Does he wield any power in Iran? Answer: no. So have you found any Holocaust deniers among Rouhani’s administration? Of course you haven’t. BTW, there are Israeli leaders who are actually in power who would overthrow the Iranian regime by force. There are influential Israelis who’ve called for a nuclear Holocaust against Iran (oh pardon, not a Holocaust, just dropping a nuke on Tehran! ). You might wish to explain that away.

            I don’t “pull numbers” from anywhere. 200 is the number used by the world’s pre-eminent specialist in Iran’s nuclear weapons program, Avner Cohen. An Israeli as well in case you only trust your own countrymen. Other estimates range as high as 400. You may take your pick on either number. Which do you prefer?

          5. Saying Israel “overthrow the Iranian regime by force” is delusional if only for the fact Persians were an empire for the last few millenias. Israel can’t ‘erase’ Iran with a few bombs, just hurt it. Such magnificent culture is extremely sustainable, very much like Judaism is.

            As for the number of nukes, you agree we have no trustworthy count. We pretty much know they exist but how many is a mystery.

            Can Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, represent Iran? From his tweeter account “#Holocaust is an event whose reality is uncertain and if it has happened, it’s uncertain how it has happened.” https://twitter.com/khamenei_ir/status/446928689943420928
            So, Ahmadinejad who led hard line of holocaust denial is gone and the current government prefer to go with – “we aren’t certain”. Maybe they should arrange another conference like the one from 2006.

            Happy Passover.

          6. @ Tankist: I don’t “agree we have no trustworthy count.” I said that most reports range from 200 to 400. The lowest number I’ve ever heard was 70. So every account I’ve ever read begins at 70 & works its way upward. I’ve NEVER EVER heard anyone say Israel has no nukes or anything less than 70. So let’s start from 70 as the confirmed lowest threshhold number. And THAT is a trustworthy count.

            I’ll come back & present to you Rouhani’s statement not only confirming the Holocaust as fact, but expressing sympathy to Jews for the suffering it caused. Big deal. You’ve got one source & I have another. It proves nothing.

            I told you to stop posting in this thread & you violated my request. You are now moderated. If you wish to continue posting, follow the rules.

    1. The French government does not need nor has it asked what you call Bibi’s bidding. It’s reported nuttiness is anchored, as always, in domestic politics where the Socialist Party has been losing badly to LePen after the Charlie Hebdo affair. Mr. Hollande thought that he had to transiently show some swollen biceps to some arbitrary Muslims, i.c. the Government of Iran . Since yesterday we know that he gave his “oui” to the French negotiators

  3. If you started talking about lobbing “pro et contra” nuclear negotiations, let’s shed a little light on one member of Kerry’s negotiation team on the talks: Sahar Nowrouzzadeh.
    She is National Security Council Director on Iran in Obama administration, and has formerly worked for National Iranian-American Council: pro-Iran lobbing group.
    With such team, neither pro-Israeli op-ed cannot influence anybody

    1. @ nikkor1: You have published a second lie. NIAC is NOT a “pro-Iran lobbing [sic] group.” This is a slur promoted by the Lobby, neocons & the MeK. It is an independent NGO representing Iranian-Americans. I put you on notice. The next comment violation of any sort will lead to moderation. Read the comment rules very carefully.

      But I did like your English syntax failure: calling NIAC a “lobbing group” does turn it into a terrorist organization. Nicely done! (irony alert)

  4. @RS:
    Please DON’T put your words in my mouth:I didn’t called NIAC terrorist organization, neither I hinted NIAC is acting in that way.

    1. Lobbing/terrorist organisation: after I looked on vocabulary, I’ve got your irony.
      Lost in translation 🙂

    2. @ nikkor1: You called NIAC a “pro-Iran” group” which it is not. It is an independent group of Iranian Americans who lobby for U.S. policy in the Mideast that is pragmatic & rational & that benefits the U.S. This does not equal “pro-Iran.” This is a meme pedaled by neocons & MeK: that NIAC is a creature of the Ayatollahs. So steer clear of it.

  5. Just one point of correction: David Albright has never been an IAEA employee, so it is incorrect to state that “Some of its personnel, including exceedingly pro-Israel analysts like David Albright,”

    Albright fronts a thinktank of his own invention (ISIS) and, yes, his “analysis” of so many issues to do with nuclear proliferation do appear to be, ahem, more than a little co-incidental with Israel’s policy position.

    Which makes one wonder where he comes up with the money to fund his pet play-thing – maybe he finds the money under his bed every morning, all put there by the tooth fairy.

    But whatever his affiliation, “IAEA personnel” isn’t one of them.

  6. I have to say that the Washington Post op-ed is disgraceful.

    Basically, they are saying that the CIA, Mossad and the IAEA inspectors will act like Keystone Cops if/when Iran attempts a “one-year dash to a bomb” and, therefore, one year is not long enough.

    Quite apart from the question of why the Iranians have to continue to suffer because of the perceived incompetence of others )why indeed?) it is obvious that any period of time will not be acceptable to these three gentlemen.

    After all, it’s pretty easy to see what their response would be to a “two-year breakout time” – they’d rent their hair and say that this will cause the spooks and inspectors to go to sleep, and not awaken until after the Boom!!!! of an Iranian nuke test.

    After all, catch the drift of this: “particularly when a sizable enrichment capacity and a sunset clause appear to have already been conceded”


    So if Iran were to spend, say, 10 years fully in compliance with the agreement hammered out in Lausanne then, heck, that’s no reason to end the restrictions. Such a thing smacks of a “sunset clause”, which appears to be anathema to these gentlemen.

    Apparently the shackles that Iran is expected to agree to put on are meant to stay on… forever.

    Does that seem right to you? Because it seems pretty outrageous to me.

    1. When France asked the Government of the Netherlands to participate in the funding of its Pierlatte U235 enrichment facility I was asked, given the details of that plant, whether it could produce bomb-grade U235 because I had studied the mathematics of such counter-current enrichment systems for my PhD work. The answer, of course, was yes, provided that the throughput of UF6 gas was greatly throttled.
      When Iran has reduced its number of centrifuges from about 19,000 to about 6,000 by destroying the 13,000 there is no way that Iran could then produce bomb-grade U235, let alone have a bomb tested within one year. First it must build thousands of new centrifuges. Then it must place these into a new counter-current cascade. Then it must test whether that cascade operates properly. As always there will be numerous glitches and breakdowns. Only then can it begin the U235 enrichment. I would be much less sanguine if Iran had already produces a significant mass of at least 90% U235 hence could rely on the experience. Iran has not produced any U235 beyond much of 20%. As the concentration increases glitches cause increasingly larger problems. What glitches? Sudden uncontrolled increases of feed. A centrifuge failing. Connecting pipes corroding or getting clogged.

  7. @ Yeah, Right

    And to Me.

    But Bibi seems to be successful in injecting his paranoia into quite a few people parading in this discussion.

    Apparently Boehner has fed Netanyahu’s Churchill complex by presenting him with a bust of Britain’s war-time leader. Efraim Halevy, a former head of Mossad, has his own view on the appropriateness, or otherwise, of the implicit comparison:

    “I am now 80 years old. I was born in 1934 and as a young boy I was in Britain in World War Two. I have a very vivid memory of those days. I knew what was going on. And I remember the chats of Winston Churchill over the radio. We used to crowd round the radio receiver and listen to him. At no time, even at the height of the Blitz, did Churchill say that there was a mortal danger to Britain’s very existence.

    The prime minister views the British wartime prime minister as his role model – he prominently displays a photograph of the British leader in his office. But, in truth, he is the absolute antithesis of Churchill; whereas Churchill projected power, confidence, strategy and absolute belief in Britain’s ultimate victory, Netanyahu repeatedly mentions the Holocaust, the Spanish Inquisition, terror, antisemitism, isolation and despair as embodied in his frequent allusion to the ‘existential threat.’

    I have said this on many occasions. I repeat it wherever I go. And I strongly object to the prime minister using this term ‘existential’ time and time again. … I think it is a terrible mistake.”


    1. The problem with anyone complaining about a “sunset clause” is that such belly-aching actually runs counter to the professed aim of the USA.

      The Americans insist that they aren’t imposing these sanctions because they like making life difficult for Iran. They are adamant that the aim of these negotiations isn’t to force Iran to beg for mercy, nor to weaken Iran in preparation for some Dastardly Surprise that Washington wants to spring on them.

      Far from it: the Americans insist that the aim of these negotiations is to come to some arrangement whereby “the West” can be satisfied that Iran’s nuclear program is, indeed, entirely peaceful.

      Because at this point in time “the West” has suspicions (and they are only suspicions, they have no facts whatsoever) that Iran’s nuclear intentions may not be all that peaceful.

      Now, so sorry, restrictions that are designed to be endless – i.e. restrictions that have no “sunset clause” – runs completely counter to that professed policy aim, precisely because without a “sunset clause” the Iranians are left in the impossible situation where they have to prove a negative.

      The Iranians are perfectly correct to stick to their principles on this: they are willing agree to restrictions – however irrational they insist such restrictions are – but they insist that if they keep their nose clean during that period then it isn’t up to **them** to then prove anything to anybody.

      They adherence to the agreement should be enough to demonstrate their peacefulness, and the onus is on the USA to prove that they are not living up to that bargain.

      But if they do abide by the agreement then they *should* expect a sunset clause, precisely because otherwise they are being expected to agree to perpetual servitude to the fears of certain paranoid delusions.

  8. Olli Heinonen not Ollie as mentioned in the text. Ollie is not a Finnish forename and it would be a bit “unnatural” to pronounce Ollie in Finnish. “Ollie” Hardy was a famous comedian, “Ollie” Heinonen is certainly not a deliberate comedian.

    Olli Heinonen earns now with his rather astonishing attitude and opinions a manifold living standard and income in USA, what he could have achieved if he had returned to Finland after the IAEA job. In Finland he had been employed by some local university (monthly salary for a professor 6,000 to 9,000 Euro monthly) or in the country’s atomic energy administration. And lost fast his “selling value” as a former IAEA “expert”. Now he can make tons of money with relative ease by creating the needed propaganda echo chamber and repeating the Israeli propaganda about Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

    Many of the papers which Olli Heinonen has been “creating” during the past years, which are mostly focused to Iran, are often written with (or by?) Simon Henderson. Simon Henderson was in 1990 awarded the Dayan Fellowship at Tel Aviv University. Hmmmmm …

    Olli Heinonen is certainly not an individual with high moral standards and neutrality like Hans Martin Blix is. Heinonen is a information age mercenary selling his services and benefiting of his Nordic and non-Jewish background in attempts to be taken as a neutral scholar and expert. If he would be a “honest” scholar he would analyze the regions political/military situation from the nuclear demilitarization’s viewpoint and not pretend that Iran is the only problem and Israel’s nukes, threats and domination attempts do not exist. Not even Heinonen can be so naive to believe that the hundreds of existing Israeli nukes are no threat to Iran and the region because Israelis like to say they will not use them. Surely Heinonen understands that even Iran would have no nuclear infra and capabilities at all the core problem is not solved.

    1. Unfortunately Finland has a long fascist tradition. This goes back to the days of Mannerheim (now what kind of Finnish name is that!?) when he entered into agreements with Hitler’s Germany. This is not to say that Finland has a strong fascist tradition but it does indicate that those sentiments are there at least in a minority. Olli Heinonen comes from that tradition. Maybe he is no more than an opportunist seeking the highest bidder, but I suspect it is deeper than that.

      1. ToivoS even you obviously have Finnish ancestors you have a very extraordinary opinion of Finnish history and politics.

        Finland had in the 30’s clearly a fascistic party IKL (Isänmaallinen kansanrintama) but it never was in the government. At the best IKL had 14 members in the parliament of 200 MPs. The government was social democrats, center party and liberals in the end of 30’s and during the wars. Surely there were individual admirers of Germany/Nazism before WW2 in the Finnish elite, but so were them in Sweden, Norway, Britain, USA etc.

        In the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement Finland was given to Soviet Union’s sphere of influence. In November 1939 Soviet Union attacked Finland and in the Winter War Finland lost 15 percent of the country. After the war Finland allied gradually with Germany because the western powers did not help and Soviet total invasion was seen as likely. In 1941 Finland attacked Soviet Union some days after Germany had attacked. That war was called Continuation War. It was a desperate attempt to get back the lost lands and resources. It was not a political alliance with Nazism.

        Field Marshal Mannerheim was the military commander of the Finnish army, not a responsible political leader when the alliance with Germany in 1941 was formed, and he was extremely pro British (not pro Germany) even he was once a general in the Tsar’s Russian army. Mannerheim despised Hitler and what he represented. Mannerheim refused to attack Leningrad from the north during the famous siege and did not want to advance to cut the railroads of Murmansk, which were essential in transferring the western weapons and other resources to Soviet forces. Stalin and Soviet Union wanted Mannerheim to become the president of Finland in 1944. Surely Mannerheim was not such a military genius the Finnish patriots want our history to remember him. During the second war he was nearly 80 years old and more interested of the party and dinner rituals in the headquarter than preparing the army for the evident massive Soviet attack which came in summer 1944.

        Finland never gave any of its Jewish citizens to Germany even Germany (Himmler) demanded them from the Finnish PM. The Finnish secret police chief gave 8 Jewish refuges to Gestapo. The government did not know about the transfer. Max Jakobson a Finnish Jew almost became the General secretary of UN in the 70’s. So linking Finland to the Nazis is not very justified. The alliance with Germany was a “practical” military alliance, not ideological.

        Let’s remember that Olli Heinonen is now in service of “US and Jewish/Israeli interests” so portraying him as a Fascist or as an example of long Finnish Fascist tradition is a bit over-scaled. A neocon opportunist or a Christian Zionist in closet would be more describing.

        1. @ Simohurtta:

          Olli Heinonen is now in service of “US and Jewish/Israeli interests”

          I don’t know what the quotation marks mean, but you know what I don’t like about that phrase, so avoid it!

          1. Well if somebody is employed by a US university think tank with close ties to close ideological, personal and financial ties to Israel, AIPAC and neocon circles whose interests is he/she expected and demanded to serve? Would Heinonen have got that position he now occupies and been able to keep it, if he would vocally express a balanced and truthful view of the nuclear situation and nuclear politics of the Middle East? That is speaking and writing also of the the existing Israeli weapons and of the problem they create, not only about Iran.

            Do you know from where Belfer Center, Heinonen’s employer, got its name? See the background of Robert Belfer. He is on the Board of Governors of the American Jewish Committee.

            Finland agreed to host the 2012 conference to start talks on the proposed Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. The conference was called off in November 2012. Called off by Iran? No by USA, demanded to do that by Israel. Arab countries and Iran very ready to attend, Israel was not. So whose “interests” does that serve? Iran’s and Iranians?

    1. Correct.

      Albright worked “alongside” the IAEA Action Team in Iraq, which means that he was not “IAEA personnel” during that time.

      It even says so in the first sentence of that link: “David Albright cooperated with the IAEA Action Team from 1992 until 1997”

      Sure, and Camp Followers “cooperate” with the army whose encampment they infest.

      After all, they wouldn’t last long if they didn’t….

      That ISIS heliography admits that Albright wasn’t there as an employee of the IAEA, but was there lending a helping hand to an understaffed and swamped Action Team.

      Here, in fact: “At the time, the Action Team employed only a handful of people, and they did not have time to review these documents. This staff shortage contributed to Zifferero giving Albright approval to review and assess these documents.”

      Read between the lines, Oui.

      Albright was following that IAEA Action Team around Iraq like a camp follower, and I’d bet very good money indeed that he wasn’t doing that as some kind of work-experience holiday, and I’d bet even more money that the IAEA didn’t tolerate his presence because they liked the cut of his jib.

      He was foisted upon that Action Team because Someone Else wanted to have some eyes and ears on the ground reporting back on what the IAEA was doing.

      I don’t know who that Someone Else was, but I would suggest that the list of likely suspects narrows down to….two.

  9. @Yeah, right.

    And to me.

    And this is of course on top of the central injustice that Israel has never bound itself to ANY agreement as far as its nuclear arsenal is concerned and swindled those who were invited to inspect their activities in this field when it was being developed in the most outrageous fashion. No wonder that it suspects others to do the same. Add to this Netanyahu’s paranoia and his mania about being Churchill redivivus and we get the present scene.

    Apparently Boehner has fed Netanyahu’s Churchill complex by presenting him with a bust of Britain’s war-time leader. Efraim Halevy, a former head of Mossad, has his own view on the appropriateness, or otherwise, of the implicit comparison:

    “I am now 80 years old. I was born in 1934 and as a young boy I was in Britain in World War Two. I have a very vivid memory of those days. I knew what was going on. And I remember the chats of Winston Churchill over the radio. We used to crowd round the radio receiver and listen to him. At no time, even at the height of the Blitz, did Churchill say that there was a mortal danger to Britain’s very existence.

    The prime minister views the British wartime prime minister as his role model – he prominently displays a photograph of the British leader in his office. But, in truth, he is the absolute antithesis of Churchill; whereas Churchill projected power, confidence, strategy and absolute belief in Britain’s ultimate victory, Netanyahu repeatedly mentions the Holocaust, the Spanish Inquisition, terror, antisemitism, isolation and despair as embodied in his frequent allusion to the ‘existential threat.’

    1. Churchill also was one of the most bone-headed British military “specialists”. He and he alone was responsible for the landing at Gallipoli. His India-policies show that he was possibly also one of the most bone-headed British politicians. On that front the much maligned Chamberlain was way, way ahead of Sir Winston.
      And have you ever wondered why the British voters kicked him out of office soon after WW2? Fine for war time; horrible for peace-time. Hence to emulate Churchill, Netanyahu needs war.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share via
Copy link