Iraqi protesters storm U.S. embassy in Baghdad

[Ludicus]

The nuclear issue was openly addressed by the Iran Nuclear Deal. Trump destroyed it due to his Obama phobia, whereas neoliberal hawks never liked it because the only form of diplomacy they are familiar with are are bombs and sanctions

Exactly. In 2016,Trump, The Great Negotiator, said at a campaign rally that,

This deal if I win will be a totally different deal. This will be a totally different deal

As we already know, Trump is better than anyone at a lot of things. Ali Khamenei rebuffed Trump's offer to meet and said "even if we ever -impossible as it is -negotiated with the U.S., it would never ever be with the current U.S. administration"
Obviously.

[Love Mountain]

I have provided many sources, not just “a CIA report from 1980,” nor are your aspersions material to its credibility. As I said many times, your insistence that it cannot be proven whether or not the regime truly believes in their religion is irrelevant at best, at worst, a willful deflection. As I pointed out, even if one accepts your premise that the global Islamic revolution is “only” geopolitical maneuvering, the result is the same. No one “antagonized” the Iranian regime into attacking the US, which had helped Khomeini transition to power, nor trying to depose Saddam, a potential ally, nor blowing up civilians in Argentina who had nothing to do with anything Israel did. That’s not a vacuum narrative, it’s an acknowledgment of fact, sans the mental gymnastics required to offset for political purposes with tangential, whataboutist caveats.

The one who claimed that Iran is trying to spread an Islamic revolution is me, not you. The last 40 years have provided little evidence of such, as the vast majority of governments surrounding Iran have maintain cordial relations and Iran has shown little proclivity to depose or convert those regimes towards theocratic rule. So yes, the evidence supports my premise that Iran follows a coherent geopolitical strategy motivated by strategic goals, not religious sensibilities. If

Rafsanjani was implicated by Argentine authorities in the AMIA bombing. He chastised the PLO for denouncing terrorism and for recognizing the state of Israel, called for jihad on Jerusalem, and implored sympathetic listeners to kill Americans, Britons, Frenchmen, blow up western factories, and hijack planes.

https://apnews.com/304878353c049ee092da81f698c886b8

During the Intifada when Israel was brutally repressing a Palestinian uprising. Or are you unaware that the majority of the Muslim world is sympathetic to Palestine and have encouraged them to rise up against their Israeli oppressors?

US containment policy against Tehran is a response to her attacks and destabilization, not leverage for bids on Iranian oil fields.

I've no idea where you got that insinuation from.

Not true at all. And you’ve already made it clear what you mean by “context:”

Selectively quoting my posts won't support your point, especially that last part splicing together "I'm not sure what you expect Iran to do" and "AMIA bombings". Nice.

Conventional invasion is obviously not how Tehran operates, nor does the above appeal to consequence detract from my position.

It doesn't because it can't. Not that Iran has shown aggression towards Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Armenia, or Oman. If you don't like the way Iran treats US allies, maybe United States should stop shutting down lines of dialogue.

[Ludicus]

The one who claimed that Iran is trying to spread an Islamic revolution is...you. The last 40 years have provided little evidence of such, as the vast majority of governments surrounding Iran have maintain cordial relations and Iran has shown little proclivity to depose or convert those regimes towards theocratic rule...maybe United States should stop shutting down lines of dialogue.

As Ocasio-Cortez put it, "it's all about the Benjamins baby".
Absolutely right, in doubt ask India.India, long at odds with Pakistan- an Islamic Republic- has a strategic,strong relationship with Iran.

Let's go back to 2012,

India-Iran Defence Cooperation - Indian Defence Review

Iran lies at the core of the worlds energy heartland formed by the Middle East and Central Asia. As such, enlightened self-interest demands that India should engage Iran in a constructive manner to safeguard its significant geopolitical and energy security stakes.

Thus, in a move that could radically alter the geopolitics of the region, Indian and Iranian defence cooperation could well prove to be an essential tool of foreign policy thereby strengthening mutual trust and enhancing security and stability in the region. It shall further be a significant pointer towards the emerging strategic calculations in the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea.

2018
Iran and India sign deal to deepen relations

And now...2019
India, being between Scylla and Charybdis, isn't happy, A New China-Iran Agreement: The Danger to India - Future ...

During the recently-concluded G-7 summit in France, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif met with his Chinese counterpart, Wang Yi, to discuss a further energy and infrastructure deal between the two countries. The strategic partnership that they eventually agreed upon will involve: loans totalling US$10 billion to Chinese companies to undertake various critical infrastructure projects; improvements to Iran’s Arak IR-40 heavy water reactor; and, over 25 years, US$280 billion to develop Iran’s oil and gas fields. Iran, on the other hand, will give China the option of first refusal to bid on any new, stalled or uncompleted oil and gas field developments. China will also locate 5,000 military personnel in Iran to safeguard its investments there.
Washington’s antagonism towards Iran and its current trade war with China drive the relationship between Beijing and Tehran. But for China, its relationship with Iran is more than about energy alone – it has geopolitical implications, especially for India.

The US sanctions notwithstanding, New Delhi cannot afford to further upset its relationship with Tehran. Beijing’s US$280 billion deal provides Iran with a powerful ally, since both countries have a common adversary, which can only draw them closer together. The China-Iran relationship could, therefore, see India sidelined. On the other hand, while maintaining a relationship with Iran is important to its energy security and strategic interests in Central Asia, India cannot risk upsetting the US through its relations with Iran

.

[Lord Thesaurian]

The one who claimed that Iran is trying to spread an Islamic revolution is me, not you.

I pointed out the fact that the regime itself has proclaimed the spread of Islamic revolution, destabilized the region, and openly called for the overthrow neighboring governments as a Shia Islamist power. Again, I don’t really care whether you personally doubt their motivations or would rather describe the latter as “strategic goals.”

During the Intifada when Israel was brutally repressing a Palestinian uprising. Or are you unaware that the majority of the Muslim world is sympathetic to Palestine and have encouraged them to rise up against their Israeli oppressors?

....and you have the audacity to accuse others of “white-washing.” You brought up Rafsanjani, not me.

Selectively quoting my posts won't support your point, especially that last part splicing together "I'm not sure what you expect Iran to do" and "AMIA bombings". Nice.

I can only assume your false accusation of my having taken your words out of context to be yet another deflection. You’ve repeatedly asserted your personal opinion that the US’ response to Tehran’s attacks and destabilization is unwarranted “antagonism.” Support for my position is not contingent on anything you’ve said, nor have you been able to challenge it on any material basis.

[Ludicus]

As a side note. Hamed A. Kermani ( ATU University in Tehran) writes,

Like a third wheel, US complicates India-Iran relations
...If Tehran joins Beijing wholeheartedly, it could give China a boost and bring about more difficulties for the United States’ grand strategy. Promoting an India-Iran partnership could have been a very simple, trouble-free way to keep Iran at bay. The recent Iran-China-Russia naval drill might act as a warning for US leaders.

[Vanoi]

Highly doubt an Iran-India partnership would keep Iran at bay. Being friends with India doesn't it stop its support of militant groups or somehow change its attitude toward Israel.

[Cope]

Many of the radical leftists who support an accommodation strategy are sympathetic, if not supportive, of Iran's attitude toward Israel. It's one of the few areas where there seems to be a consensus between the far right and extreme left.

[Vanoi]

Found one of the best articles ever written on the two different most influential Shiite clerics in the Muslim world.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/iran-iraq...164956689.html

The article shows difference between Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Iraq's Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani and what they believe and how they act.

Most major differences between the two is that Khamenei is very authoritarian and very much involved in the day to day lives of Iran's Shiites. Its the complete opposite for al-Sistani. He is very liberal and doesn't control the daily lives of Iraqi Shiites though they do listen to him.

The biggest difference though is the Iraq protests. Khamenei has called for support of the Iraqi government and called Iraq's protests foreign backed sedition.

Meanwhile al-Sistni has protested against the violent crackdown brought by the Iraqi government. He has supported protesters call for change and even told the Iraqi government to "recalculate" its descion to not step down.

There is much much more information in the article but its quite obvious there is a growing divide between the two most influential Shiite clerics in the world and their followers.

[Ludicus]

Many of the radical leftists who support an accommodation strategy are sympathetic, if not supportive, of Iran's attitude toward Israel.

Would you mind to elaborate? what do you mean by "supportive, of Iran's attitude toward Israel" ?

It's one of the few areas where there seems to be a consensus between the far right and extreme left

I see- you dont you consider yourself on the "extreme right" side of the political spectrum. If you don't know that the far-right has an obsession with Iran, you are in denial. After careful introspection, ask yourself. Ask Trump, Bannon or Flynn-known by known for his obsessive Iranophobia. Or ask Mattis. ("Iran is not an enemy of ISIS")

[Cope]

Would you mind to elaborate? what do you mean by "supportive, of Iran's attitude toward Israel" ?

I mean supporting - often tacitly - Iran's staunchly anti-Zionist, anti-American ("imperialist") perspective and making excuses for its support for anti-Semitic, Islamist terror groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.

I see- you dont you consider yourself on the "extreme right" side of the political spectrum. If you don't know that the far-right has an obsession with Iran, you are in denial. After careful introspection, ask yourself. Ask Trump, Bannon or Flynn-known by known for his obsessive Iranophobia. Or ask Mattis. ("Iran is not an enemy of ISIS")

Neoconservative foreign policy has nothing to do with the unspoken consensus that exists between elements of the radical left and the far-right over Israel.

[sumskilz]

If you don't know that the far-right has an obsession with Iran, you are in denial.

If by far-right you mean neo-nazis, white nationalists, and the like, they seem pretty pro-Iran. You could say at the very least, they're against conflict with Iran.

Check out Richard Spencer's "stop war with Iran" twitter banner. Also: What Do You Do When Neo-Nazis Crash Your Anti-War Rally?

or...

David Duke on Twitter:

God bless Lebanon, Syria and Iran - crush the genocidal Jewish Supremacists!

Back in the day, David Duke was even an honored guest:



SPLC 2007:

Neo-Nazis and other extremists from the United States and Europe headlined a December conference in Tehran that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad described as a scholarly gathering to debate issues surrounding the Holocaust. But it was actually nothing more than a worldwide conference of virulent Jew haters.

The Dec. 11-12 gathering, hosted by the Foreign Ministry and entitled "Review of the Holocaust: Global Vision," was denounced by the governments of the United States, Britain and numerous other countries. But its sponsors insisted that its only purpose was "to clarify the hidden and open corners of this issue."

Ahmadinejad's proclivities already were well known. He has called the murder of millions of Jews by the Nazis a "myth" and proposed Israel's destruction. Last August, Tehran hosted an exhibition of cartoons mocking the Holocaust.

A glance at the conference agenda made that point clearly enough. Among the 67 participants from 30 countries were Holocaust deniers including Frederick Töben of Australia, Robert Faurisson of France, and David Duke of the United States. The list was rounded out with dubious Iranian scholars, a handful of "investigators" from other countries, and a tiny fringe group of Orthodox Jews who despise Zionism.

ADL 2014:

Iran kicked off its anti-America and anti-Israel New Horizon Conference as the final part of the 13th International Resistance Film Festival in Tehran. The three-day conference opened on September 29 and marks the second time Tehran has hosted the event. According to organizers, the event will include “tens of elite thinkers, philosophers, activists and politicians worldwide” who will discuss and “expose” Zionist control of the film industry and the influence of the “Zionist lobby in America.”

As in the previous conference, this year’s New Horizon Conference has drawn the participation of several anti-Israel activists, anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists and Holocaust deniers. A new presence at the conference is the participation of a so called American anti-war activist, Medea Benjamin, a co-founder of CODEPINK.

In addition to Benjamin, the conference’s official website published the names of several American and international anti-Semites, anti-Israel activists and Holocaust deniers that are expected to be in attendance, including Maria Poumier, a French conspiracy theorist and Holocaust denier; Claudio Moffa, an Italian Holocaust denier; Kevin Barrett, an anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist and frequent contributor to Iran’s English language propaganda news network, Press TV; Garth Porter, an anti-Israel journalist; Pepe Escobar, a Brazilian anti-Israel journalist; and Art Olivier, a former elected official from California and 9/11 conspiracy theorist.

Moreover, Iranian news agencies have reported that a number of other individuals are scheduled to also attend the three-day conference in Tehran. Iranian news agencies have reported the expected participation of Alison Weir, the director of If Americans Knew and the Council for the National Interest, two grassroots anti-Israel organizations; Ken O’Keefe, an anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist former U.S. Marine and a regular contributor to Press TV; Wayne Madsen, an anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist; Cyrus McGoldrick, the former Civil Rights Manager for the New York chapter of Council on American-Islamic Relations; Dieudonne M’bala M’bala, the French anti-Semitic comedian and the creator of the anti-Semitic “quenelle” gesture; and Mark Siljander, a former U.S. Representative (R-MI) who was found guilty in 2010 of two federal charges relating to his ties to an Islamic charity alleged to have funded terrorist groups.

[Cope]

Here's a small selection of the complaints made by the the Jewish Labour Movement to the Equality and Human Rights Commission. The allegations refer to comments/actions taken by Labour (left wing) members and activists, but they could just as easily come from the mouth of Nick Griffin or Andrew Anglin. I think they provide a reasonable insight into why some on the radical left are supportive of the Iranian regime's attitude toward Israel.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Source.

Nick Griffin's response to the Soleimani killing.

As the Zionist lobby, Saudi-bribed politicians, insane & heretical evangelical 'Christians' & arms manufacturers all root for #WW3, here's a timely reminder of the first time the elites set the world on fire for their own benefit. #NotInMyName

[Ludicus]

If by far-right you mean neo-nazis, white nationalists, and the like, they seem pretty pro-Iran

I'm talking about the conservative far-right, fanatically racist, fanatically anti-Muslim,fanatically anti-Palestine, fanatically pro-Netanyahu. Concerning the Jews,the conservative far-right is opportunistically ambivalent.
As an example, Bolsonaro's bromance with Netanyahu. That's great and all, but Bolsonaro has repeatedly praised Hitler, says the holocaust crimes can be forgotten, a couple of days ago Brazil's culture secretary was fired under pressure from the Israelite Confederation, after echoing an infamous Goebbels's speech,playing in the background of the video music from Wagner, the opera Lohengrin.

Which is even worse, the nazi said "the left was doing a fallacious remote association"and that "there was nothing wrong with his sentence". The nazistoid chief, Bolsonaro, embarrassed, was unable to express indignation and called the speech "an unfortunate pronouncement".

The Brazilian Israelite Confederation rightly said: "To emulate [Goebbels'] view... is a frightening sign of his vision of culture, which must be combated and contained"
------
For "Honest" neonazis ( KKK, Spencer and others) there is a hate that don't hide: the enemy of my enemy is my friend.It's just a question of a superlative degree of hate.

--
Edit. Just to conclude. For my part I also think that Bernie Is the Best Candidate on Palestine - Jacobin

[Prodromos]

Anti-Semitism is the glue that holds illiberals together, whether it's fascists, socialists, integralists or what have you. People who hate liberty usually hate Jews (and America, which is the embodiment of liberalism).

This reminds me. When Hitler declared war on America, he called it a war against the "Anglo-Saxon-Jewish-Capitalist" world, lol.

[Heathen Hammer]

Not treating Israel like it is a 51st state is not anti-semitism.
The main problem is that while media and swamp screech about "Russian influence", pro-Israel lobby has an abnormal amount of weight in American politics, leading to policies and decisions that benefit Israel but not the US and billions of taxpayer funds being wasted on "aid" to Israel instead of benefit of American people. People who hold Israeli citizenship (and other citizenship in general) are allowed to hold major political offices. Now they are pushing for laws that aim at limiting free speech (i.e. calling for boycotting Israel could be deemed illegal in certain states). So indeed, this is a problem and threat to liberty of American people. So no, acknowledging this and treating it as a major problem is not anti-semitism.

[Prodromos]

No, I'm pretty sure it is. I mean, anyone with an IQ above room temperature knows that white supremacists usually aren't concerned about mistreatment of Arabs, so that can't be why they hate Israel. It's what we call a pretext, a veiled attack. You see, "I hate the Jews" is something uttered only in chorus, when protected by the anonymity of the mob (the atmosphere of the pogrom). During periods when anti-Semitism is frowned upon in society, when open anti-Semitism makes someone stick out like a sore thumb, the anti-Semite isn't strong enough to be honest about what he believes; he has to cloak it in something more wholesome, like the quest for justice or concern for the budget deficit or for the freedom of speech. But they're not fooling everyone, are they? We see them.

[Heathen Hammer]

No, this has nothing to do with anti-semitism. Plenty of ethnic Jews oppose the one-sided and costly "special relationship" between US and Israel.
"Anti-semitism" is just a cowardly, demagogic and blatantly intellectually dishonest retort to rational concerns about disproportional amount of weight that pro-Israeli groups have in US. Concerns over spending billions on foreign aid have nothing to do with ethnicity, nor does the influence on current US foreign policy in Middle East, since it is predominantly pro-Israeli groups that want to keep US engaged with endless wars in Middle East, which again are something that plenty of Jewish people oppose.
No foreign state should have such weight in nation's domestic and foreign affairs. I'm okay with banning people with foreign citizenship from holding political office and I'm ok with future withholding of any aid to foreign states unless there is an actual fiscal justification for that. Also I'd be okay with US charging Israel (and Saudis too) to pay back the American aid with interest and maybe sanctioning it economically if they refuse to do so.

[Cyclops]

Anti-Semitism is the glue that holds illiberals together, whether it's fascists, socialists, integralists or what have you.

Hiram Ulysses Grant? George Patton?

People who hate liberty usually hate Jews (and America, which is the embodiment of liberalism).

I think your analysis lacks subtlety. There are many shades of anti-semitism and anti-zionism, and many kinds of "illiberalism" too even within the narrow confines of US politics, let alone the world stage.

Its the same on the other side of the US coin. Rapturous evangelicals have a very different reason for supporting Israel than oil hungry warhawks.

However I guess these things have to be simplified for the US political marketplace.

[Heathen Hammer]

Evangelicals care more about keeping Jesus in school then geopolitical issues, the main reason Israel is treated like 51st state is because US allows foreign nationals to hold major political office along with globalist 5th column (neocons and neolibs) which seems to be happy to waste billions of taxpayer dollars on waging wars on behalf of Israel and Saudis.

[sumskilz]

the main reason Israel is treated like 51st state is because US allows foreign nationals to hold major political office...

Yeah, I saw that list of people in office who allegedly hold dual-citizenship when Caduet posted it, but it’s BS.

The vast majority of American Jews wouldn’t want Israeli dual-citizenship regardless of their views on Israel, because unless they want to live in Israel for more than five years and can’t get a work visa, it’s idiotic for them to acquire it. The application process is a big hassle, and the only benefit is $760 (or less) per month for living expenses for the first six months and free healthcare for a year. That’s in a country where $760 buys a lot less than in the US. In exchange, if they are under thirty, they’re required to serve two to three years in the IDF which pays only $308 per month for combat troops or $182 per month for support roles. Even if they’re over thirty, they’re likely to have their citizenship revoked if they leave Israel within the first year, which is better than the other consequence, which is being liable for to pay Israeli taxes the rest of their lives at rates that are obscene by American standards. Likewise, their children will never be able to visit Israel as young adults without being drafted upon arrival. So if you think most American Jews want to be forced to work in a dangerous job for a tiny fraction of minimum wage and pay ridiculously high taxes, the allegation makes sense.