world

Israel furious as Kerry heads to Iran talks in Geneva

37 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2013 AFP

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

37 Comments
Login to comment

Kerry has obviously forgotten that everything revolves around Israel's view of the world.....

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Why is Israel Barking about Iran? Israel has Nuclear weapons in their stocks. ahh also chemical weapons.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

Israel is throwing a fit again for nothing. The diplomatic relations between the US and Iran are cordial at best. We'll put up a friendly face but discuss the serious stuff only amongst ourselves. Besides, it's not like the US and Isreal aren't using spies there...

4 ( +6 / -2 )

I love it when all the conservative hawks out there say great things about Netanyahu's resolve. They want so badly for America to be some badass. But the conservatives roll over on their stomachs when Netanyahu demands that they do so. How pathetic is that? The hawks kow tow to Netanyahu's every whim. They will try to say how weak Obama is. Just remember to do that they need to provide the details of the talks; they can't do that. The truth is that Obama is doing a great job of making Iran bend to America's wishes. Netanyahu tried to influence our presidential election because he despises Obama; now he works for the conservatives in America trying to denounce Obama's superior efforts to manipulate Iran. Obama was the president that established the coalition with Europe and others that is now forcing Iran's hand due to the economic pressure that was a direct result of Obama's efforts.

I will always remember the foolish Netanyahu presenting his analogy of "If it quacks like a duck ..." What a tool he is.

The conservative hawks true (lack of) tenacity is exposed as they show themselves to be totally obedient to Netanyahu

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Netanyahu is just a yahoo who hasn't learned you don't bite the hand that feeds you. He takes HEAPS of money and weapons from the US, does not abide by agreements, then makes demands on what US politicians do. Not that the US would ever threaten Israel's carte blanche, or anything, but still.

"Netanyahu vowed that Israel would not be bound by any international agreement..."

Exactly. When it doesn't go Israel's way, it's war!

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Such a shame that so many great people have a morally bankrupt govt.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I love it when all the conservative hawks out there say great things about Netanyahu's resolve. They want so badly for America to be some badass.

Want to be badass??

But the conservatives roll over on their stomachs when Netanyahu demands that they do so. How pathetic is that? The hawks kow tow to Netanyahu's every whim.

Kind of like how liberals jump off the cliff and bend to Obama's every whim? So you are saying there is a correlation?

They will try to say how weak Obama is.

Try to say, Obama IS weak. Look how he handled Benghazi, the Arab Spring, don't even want to talk about Iran, then there is Russia, with Putin laughing at his face. China saying openly, not to mention stupidly, threatening the US that they can bomb us out of existence and Obama, once again, taking it up the pipe. Yeah, he's weak with a capitol W.

Just remember to do that they need to provide the details of the talks; they can't do that. The truth is that Obama is doing a great job of making Iran bend to America's wishes.

Really, if so, why do they still have a weapon weeks away possibly? Obama doesn't want that, if talks were going SO well as you say, they wouldn't have a bomb-period!

Netanyahu tried to influence our presidential election because he despises Obama; now he works for the conservatives in America trying to denounce Obama's superior efforts to manipulate Iran.

What in blazes are you babbling about? Netanyahu had no more influence on our presidential elections than Ireland having an influence on the election. Come on now! Superior? lol

Obama was the president that established the coalition with Europe and others that is now forcing Iran's hand due to the economic pressure that was a direct result of Obama's efforts.

What coalition? Who's forcing Iran? Are we talking about the same thing? Where is Iran bending? Where are they capitulating?

I will always remember the foolish Netanyahu presenting his analogy of "If it quacks like a duck ..." What a tool he is.

He's right, what do you think Iran is going to do, once they have a bomb? They will NO DOUBT use it, once that process is completed, it's part of their prophecy, NOT to mention, you are starting an Arms race in the ME. You think Saudi Arabia (and to a lesser extent Egypt) will stand by and allow Iran to have a bomb? This will have serious negative consequences throughout the region and I will tell you this, Israel will NOT be a sitting duck, regardless of what Kerry says, If they have to, they will do whatever they have to to protect their nation as they should.

The conservative hawks true (lack of) tenacity is exposed as they show themselves to be totally obedient to Netanyahu

What? If that were true. Iran wouldn't have a weapon, Netanyahu wouldn't be outraged and US forces would be poised and ready in position to attack Iran on Israel's notice.

-14 ( +3 / -17 )

We do not live in Israel, surrounded by Muslims etc..who want to wipe Jews, Israel, Zionists etc...off the face of the earth so lets give old Bibi (Netanyahoo's cute and cuddly nickname) a bit of a break! By the way, the SAUDIS etc...also hate Iran, even if we do not hear it in public so if we awe more violence, my guess the Jews and the Sunni Muslims will do something to sabotage the Persian (Iranian) Shiite plans to get Western sanctions lifted from Teheran. IMHO

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

@smith

So Israel, just should sit by and allow Iran to initiate an attack which the Iranians plan to do. Every Israeli knows this and the Jewish nation doesn't have the right to defend itself?

Gosh you liberals just never cease to amaze me!

-7 ( +4 / -11 )

Give there, take here. The US should be realistic about how much can be achieved with sanctions. Iran has the potential to be again one of the more secular leaning democracies in the middle east ... in fact it was in 1953 when Mohammed Mosaddeq was overthrown in a you know who coup. Over what? A demand for more of the oil profits, a demand which by today's standards would look more than reasonable.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

@craig

Give there, take here. The US should be realistic about how much can be achieved with sanctions. Iran has the potential to be again one of the more secular leaning democracies in the middle east ...

Yeah, sanctions have done a lot a destroying and limiting Iran's desire and pledge to make a bomb. Sorry, Iran, at least in the near foreseeable future will NEVER be a secular nation or embrace democracy. Yeah, perhaps when the Mullahs are kicked out, other than that, forget it.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

bass4funk: "So Israel, just should sit by and allow Iran to initiate an attack which the Iranians plan to do."

And you get this top-secret information from? Please! Kerry is trying to make peace, and you don't do that the way Netanyahu would like. He wants a dictatorship over everything. If it were the other way around you'd be SCREAMING foul.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

So what's the deal?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There's nothing new about Israel not honouring international agreements. Israel is the world leader in this field.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

I hope President Palin will be able to repair our relationship with Israel.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

Wow, nothing upsets a zionist like the potential for peace! Iran hasn't attacked another country in over 225 years, in the last weeks Israel has attacked Lebanon, Gaza and Syria... Iran is not the one the world needs to be worried about.

3 ( +6 / -4 )

I fear the old saying might be truer than the doves like to admit: "If the Arabs put down their weapons there would be peace. If the Israelis put down their weapons there would be no Israel." Neither side's hands are clean, but this is a conflict that has been raging for a long, long, time and it's going to take a long time to get resolved, I'm sure. Hopefully Iran really does want peace, but if I was Israel, I would be very wary of their intentions with history as it is.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

bass4funk >why do they still have a weapon weeks away possibly?

Here's a few dates of interest on a nuclear Iran...

1984: West German intelligence sources claim that Iran’s production of a bomb “is entering its final stages.” US Senator Alan Cranston claims Iran is seven years away from making a weapon.

1992: Israeli parliamentarian Benjamin Netanyahu tells his colleagues that Iran is 3 to 5 years from being able to produce a nuclear weapon.

1995: The New York Times reports that US and Israeli officials fear “Iran is much closer to producing nuclear weapons than previously thought” – less than five years away. Netanyahu claims the time frame is three to five years.

1996: Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres claims Iran will have nuclear weapons in four years.

1998: Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld claims Iran could build an ICBM capable of reaching the US within five years.

1999: An Israeli military official claims that Iran will have a nuclear weapon within five years.

2001: The Israeli Minister of Defense claims that Iran will be ready to launch a nuclear weapon in less than four years.

2002: The CIA warns that the danger of nuclear weapons from Iran is higher than during the Cold War, because its missile capability has grown more quickly than expected since 2000 – putting it on par with North Korea.

2003: A high-ranking Israeli military officer tells the Knesset that Iran will have the bomb by 2005 — 17 months away.

2006: A State Department official claims that Iran may be capable of building a nuclear weapon in 16 days.

2008: An Israeli general tells the Cabinet that Iran is “half-way” to enriching enough uranium to build a nuclear weapon and will have a working weapon no later than the end of 2010.

2009: Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak estimates that Iran is 6-18 months away from building an operative nuclear weapon.

2010: Israeli decision-makers believe that Iran is at most 1-3 years away from being able to assemble a nuclear weapon.

2011: IAEA report indicates that Iran could build a nuclear weapon within months.

2013: Israeli intelligence officials claim that Iran could have the bomb by 2015 or 2016.

If Israel is so worried about an "Islamic Bomb" why don't they (and their US patsy) simply say, OK Iran, you stop your alleged development and we'll get rid of our alleged (100 plus) nuclear weapons. That would immediately end the nuclear arms race in the middle east wouldn't it? Well no, because there already is an "Islamic Bomb". The US's main ally in East Asia, Pakistan has had nuclear weapons for decades now and has recently developed the world's smallest, something no doubt of interest to the Taliban (and the Saudi's apparently). But no, it's Iran that is threatening middle east "destabilization".

0 ( +2 / -1 )

And you get this top-secret information from? Please! Kerry is trying to make peace, and you don't do that the way Netanyahu would like. He wants a dictatorship over everything. If it were the other way around you'd be SCREAMING foul.

It's not secret information. It doesn't matter if Kerry is trying to sell them Baskin Robbins, the point is, Iran will never give up or rest until Israel is wiped off the map, simple as that and all the carrot dangling and imposing sanctions will not stop it. Netanyahu has the right to scream, you don't think so because it's NOT your country. Of course, they want peace, but there is no way that will ever happen.

@saxon

There's nothing new about Israel not honouring international agreements. Israel is the world leader in this field.

But the Palestinians, Hezbollah and Hamas do, right?

@homeland

I hope President Palin will be able to repair our relationship with Israel.

Probably would, since President Obama is inept at handling any ME problems.

@arias

Wow, nothing upsets a zionist like the potential for peace! Iran hasn't attacked another country in over 225 years, in the last weeks Israel has attacked Lebanon, Gaza and Syria... Iran is not the one the world needs to be worried about.

No, just stormed and destroyed the US embassy, held Americans captive for 444 days, persecuted Jews and Christians during the revolution and Iran uses Hezbollah and Hamas as proxies to do their fighting, not to mention 8 years of fighting with Iraq, supplying rockets to Hezbollah in order to strike back at Israel. Iran wants to bomb the Jewish nation to bits. I think the real danger in all this are people that think this is all much to do about nothing, that's what we need to worry about.

@mark

If Israel is so worried about an "Islamic Bomb" why don't they (and their US patsy) simply say, OK Iran, you stop your alleged development and we'll get rid of our alleged (100 plus) nuclear weapons. That would immediately end the nuclear arms race in the middle east wouldn't it? Well no, because there already is an "Islamic Bomb". The US's main ally in East Asia, Pakistan has had nuclear weapons for decades now and has recently developed the world's smallest, something no doubt of interest to the Taliban (and the Saudi's apparently).

But no, it's Iran that is threatening middle east "destabilization".

What a crock of HS! How so? Iran has itself to blame for all of this. And, Actually, it wouldn't deter them one bit. Besides, Pakistan is not threatening Israel.

http://youtu.be/O8GhzrBt6ik

http://www.meforum.org/2462/the-quran-israel-not-for-jews

There is no way on God's green Earth that the Iranians will ever leave Israel alone! they have a right to protect their nation and should do so with or with The help of the US. Iran can always turn to their Russia patsy for help.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

"Tehran denies any such ambition and, since President Hassan Rouhani took office in August, has made overtures suggesting it is prepared to scale back its enrichment of uranium in return for the easing of crippling Western sanctions."

Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei continues to hold the real power in Iran. Will Kerry and the Europeans negotiate with him?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei continues to hold the real power in Iran. Will Kerry and the Europeans negotiate with him?

No, because your premise betrays complete ignorance of Iran's political system.

Khamenei's power lies in the constitutional authority of his position to appoint up to six members of the Guardian Council, the head of the judiciary, and the commanders of the armed forces. (He has "bully pulpit" influence as do mos leaders.) Iran's "Assembly of Experts" selects the "Supreme Leader" and they can replace him. Members of the Assembly of Experts are directly elected by the people of Iran.

So much for your "real power" statement.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has ruled Iran since the death of the last ayatollah in 1989.

Iran's presidents are subservient to the supreme leader. Didn't you know that, yabits?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Netanyahu is a warmonger. Ahmadinejad was too. Now Iran has a new president who is making peaceful overtures and the Israelis/Republicans/Bass don't like that either. Typical. As someone once said, "Give peace a chance".

0 ( +2 / -2 )

No, because your premise betrays complete ignorance of Iran's political system.

Some points of correction for you:

According to the Iranian constitution, the president answers to the Supreme Leader. The President of Iran does not hold full control over Iran's foreign policy, the armed forces, or nuclear policy. All of these are ultimately under the control of the Supreme Leader. The Assembly of Experts have never removed a Supreme Leader from office. The Assembly of Experts decide who may be elected or who may not be elected to The Assembly of Experts. So, actually Serrano is quite correct in this case.

The president works and speaks at the pleasure of the Supreme Leader, that the president of Iran is now speaking more positively about peace seems to speak to a change, however slight, in the Supreme Leader's world view. I would like to think this is a positive development and hope that is the start of something very nice in the Middle East. If so, it is about time.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

To add another analogy to Serrano's statement of who's the boss in Iran, if you use the American's hierarchy in government, the Iranian President is the equivalent to the US Speaker of the House (3rd in charge - or line of succession). Just something for folks to keep in mind whenever some blowhard starts talking trash.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Really, if so, why do they still have a weapon weeks away possibly?

Have you ever provided one fact in your entire life? Could someone actually be so credulous. Just because someone uses the word "possibly" does not excuse the blatant attempt to sway opinions with what I will kindly put as non facts. In "weeks away" time (as was stated) we can all acknowledge that is was not possible or probable or anything except propaganda concerning the "weapon." This is way beyond pure conjecture, which is at best an honest attempt to project a possibility. This will NEVER happen and it is meant purely as a source of propaganda. The conservatives use propaganda so frequently concerning Obama's relationship to Iran that the totally lack credence and have exposed themselves to ridicule by setting timetables that expire and then become a distant past. Everyone remembers those timetable declarations and never again accept the credibility of any statements not backed by references.

I said the conservatives would try to dance around the content of the proposed agreement and lo and behold - they did. Shocking!

Facts: Obama arranged a coalition with Europe and others that has been so bulletproof that it has crippled Iran. Never have sanctions been so precisely aimed at oil in Iran than there was no wiggle room. Iran is begging for relief. Netanyahu is attempting to insert himself in negotiations which we and our allies constructed after he could not successfully curtail Iran's uranium production one iota. American conservatives has supported Netanyahu's edicts 100%.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

@seren

Netanyahu is a warmonger.

How so? For taking a tough stance on Iran and terrorism? Or should he bow down and not have the balls to deal a soon to be nuclear Iran.

Ahmadinejad was too. Now Iran has a new president who is making peaceful overtures and the Israelis/Republicans/Bass don't like that either. Typical.

I think it's typical from the looney left that they think Israel should just

If they were truly sincere and with good intentions, why not? But we all know Iran would never admit to anything

As someone once said, "Give peace a chance".

Tell that to the Iranians.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Netanyahu had no more influence on our presidential elections than...

Never said he did. I said "tried." Definitely a feeble attempt at a Strawman Argument. I will not do your work for you. So you or anyone else interested will have to look up his pathetic (obvious timed) press statements. Netanyahu clearly made various derogatory statements that any idiot could see though. His thinly veiled attempts were of course unsuccessful. Your attempt to equate his lack of success with his not attempting to do so is just as unsuccessful.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Iran's presidents are subservient to the supreme leader. Didn't you know that, yabits?

So, that would mean that the president and his staff are negotiating on the supreme leader's authority. And that it's childishly foolish to expect that Khamenei has to negotiate personally.

Just as Kerry is not the "real power" behind the United States, nor the European negotiators the "real power" behind their respective countries.

The Assembly of Experts have never removed a Supreme Leader from office.

(There haven't been many supreme leaders, and Iran's constitution is rather new.) Nor has, in my best research, the current supreme leader ever overturned an agreement negotiated by the president and his staff. So Serrano's attempt at a point is nonsense.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

(There haven't been many supreme leaders, and Iran's constitution is rather new.) Nor has, in my best research, the current supreme leader ever overturned an agreement negotiated by the president and his staff. So Serrano's attempt at a point is nonsense.

How many Supreme Leaders have been or haven't been is beside the point. It is a closed circle. The reason the current Supreme Leader has never overturned an agreement negotiated by a president or his staff is quite simply because they work at his pleasure. As I wrote above, the president does not have the authority to negotiate on his own. He must have the approval of the Supreme Leader. If it makes it easier to understand, the President of Iran is doing the bidding of the Supreme Leader. If he does not, he will be dismissed. What Serrano wrote is not 'nonsense'. It is a fact of the Iranian government. Please inform yourself before you dismiss others.

What I said stands, however. The new stance of the current president reflect approval of the Supreme Leader. As written above, without this approval the President cannot act. I am heartened by this new stance and I hope it is the beginning of a very postiive change.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The new stance of the current president reflect approval of the Supreme Leader.

Wrong. Ahmadinejad's hard line position found his office at odds with the intent of the Supreme Leader on several occasions, yet he was not replaced. What the leader's influence seems to have had is enabling more moderate person to win the office.

The Supreme Leader has no direct authority, under Iran's Constitution to replace the president. He can only take an action against the president after Iran's Supreme Court has found the president guilty of violating his duties, OR after a vote of impeachment by the Parliament. As the elections of two years ago prove, there is a lot of differing of opinion in Iran's government. An action by the Supreme Leader, on his own volition, to try to replace the president would be met with significant opposition.

Please inform yourself before you dismiss others.

Heal thyself first.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The Supreme Leader has no direct authority, under Iran's Constitution to replace the president.

Incorrect. The Supreme Leader is the highest power in the country. This position is higher than the Assembly of Experts. The Supreme Leader can appoint or dismiss Guardian Council jurists at will. The Essembly of Experts scrutiny of the supreme leader really does not even exist. So, there power is not as it seems to the naked eye. When it comes to the signing of treaties with other countries or other such international duties, the president is absolutely subordinate to the supreme leader. While Ahmadinejad and the Supreme Leader did not see eye to eye about the economy and the like, those are domestic issues, not international ones. As I said, the president cannot make any moves internationally without the approval of the Supreme Leader. Just because the Supreme Leader did not remove Ahmadinejad does not mean he could not have if he had so desired. Please think in a more complex manner. Ahmadinejad was soon to end his last term. Rather than causing domestic turmoil, it made much more sense to wait for a more pliable candidate to take office. That is what the Supreme Leader did. Remember, the Supreme Leader is also in charge of supervising the ballots that elect the President.

Heal thyself first.

I am fine, thank you. A look in the mirror seems in order for you, though. Nothing I have written in at all incorrect. Perhaps you are overstepping your knowledge base?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nothing I have written in at all incorrect.

Oh? Let's try this one for starters: "Just because the Supreme Leader did not remove Ahmadinejad does not mean he could not have if he had so desired."

Wrong. If he tried to do so on the basis of his own "desires," he would have no constitutional basis for it. You could easily prove me wrong by citing the article in Iran's Constitution that gives the office of the supreme leader the authority to dismiss the president purely on his own desire. That is, without prior actions by the Supreme Court or the elected Parliament.

Please think in a more complex manner.

This from the guy who's defending the notion that the supreme leader has to negotiate directly with Kerry and the Europeans? The Iranians are no dummies, and the supreme leader is not a dictator with absolute authority as Serrano -- and you by your defense -- imply that he is. He might in many respects be considered the top guy, but his role and authority are defined by the constitution. When things are that simple, there's no need to try to cover up for a lack of knowledge by attempts at obfuscating via an appeal for complexity. It's a dead giveaway.

If he acts in a way that others in the leadership feel is abusing his mandate under the constitution, it won't be very long before the country would welcome a new supreme leader. Iran is not North Korea.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

You could easily prove me wrong by citing the article in Iran's Constitution that gives the office of the supreme leader the authority to dismiss the president purely on his own desire.

Your problem is that you are looking at letters on your screen without looking at th meaning behind them. For example, you keep using the term 'the constitution' as if it means what it means in your country. The constitution of Iran is meant to protect the theocracy, not the people. Once things had gone sour between Ahmadinejad and the Supreme Leader, the Supreme Leader changed the power hierarchy in Iranian government to give much more influence to factions aligned with the Revolutionary Guards and clerical circles. Didn't you happened to notice how little Ahmadinejad seemed to matter in the year before he left office?

The Iranians are no dummies

No one except you is suggesting this.

the supreme leader is not a dictator with absolute authority as Serrano -- and you by your defense -- imply that he is.

No one suggested he had abolute authority. Nothing is absolute.

When things are that simple, there's no need to try to cover up for a lack of knowledge by attempts at obfuscating via an appeal for complexity.

Actually, the Iranian government is much more complicated that you realize. You should do deeper research. The Supreme Leader has at his finger-tips the tools to control pretty much all aspects of the Iranian government. If you had paid attention to what I wrote above, you would have seen that unless there were another revolution, it would be pretty much impossible to remove the Supreme Leader. The Supreme Leader controls most, if not all, of the pieces in play that would be needed to make his removal a reality.

If he acts in a way that others in the leadership feel is abusing his mandate under the constitution, it won't be very long before the country would welcome a new supreme leader. Iran is not North Korea.

As I mentioned above, the Supreme Leader controls most, if not all, of the pieces in play that would be needed to make his removal a reality. It would be nearly impossible to remove him without another revolution. You are talking about theories and I am talking about practice.

Iran is not North Korea.

You are correct, but not nearly in the way you mean. Kim is a figurehead in North Korea. It is the military brass who stand with him who are the ones pulling the strings to a great degree. This is rather like Iran's president when it comes to foreign affairs or nuclear power, etc. He holds no power to negotiate. The Supreme Leader is the actually leader in Iran.

I know you are in the US, so I am pasting a link for you. Please educate yourself and stop being so quick to stick the label of US politics on top of other countries. Iran and the US systems are very different and your attempting to make them look just the same with your naive comments about the 'constitution' show that you have not really come to understand this.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/tehran/inside/govt.html

On the surface, the U.S. and Iranian governments have much in common: a president who is popularly elected, a boisterous legislature, and a powerful judiciary. The obvious difference lies in the fact that Iran is an Islamic theocracy, and that one man, the Supreme Leader, exerts ideological and political control over a system dominated by clerics who shadow every major function of the state. While Western governments welcomed the election of Mohammad Khatami -- a forward-thinking cleric known for his moderate views -- to the presidency in 1997 (and again in 2001), there are areas of the Iranian power structure over which he has virtually no control, including the armed services.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

bass4funk >Besides, Pakistan is not threatening Israel.

Oh really? You think Pakistan providing Saudi Arabia with nuclear weapons is not a threat to Israel? You seem to have forgotten that almost all of the 9-11 bombers were Saudi's and that the Saudi's directly finance most of the Sunni Islamic Fundamentalist groups currently growing more and more aggressive in the Middle East and North Africa? I suspect your hero "Bibi" would disagree with you. Research Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence and check out their links to the various middle eastern terrorist groups, the Taliban and Bin Laden ("The leak in 2012 of e-mails from Stratfor revealed that papers captured during the raid in Abbotabad on Osama Bin Laden's compound showed up to 12 ISI officials knew where he was and that Bin Laden had been in regular contact with the ISI)". But no, Iran is behind everything right?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Netanyahu will make sure Israel remains the dominant military force in the Middle East no matter haw much North American and European blood it costs!

2 ( +2 / -0 )

This is a bit old, but I think it adds needed information to be able to understand Iran's unique theocracy.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/11/13/us-iran-leader-idUSTRE5AC2TB20091113

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei cannot be removed from his post because his legitimacy comes from God, an official close to Iran's most powerful figure was reported Friday as saying.

Mojtaba Zolnour, a Khamenei representative in the elite Revolutionary Guards, told a gathering of Khamenei's representatives in Iranian universities that the clerical body that chose him, the Assembly of Experts, could not remove him.

"The members of the assembly ... do not appoint the Supreme Leader, rather they discover him and it is not that they would be able to remove him any time they wish so," he said

Also:

You could easily prove me wrong by citing the article in Iran's Constitution that gives the office of the supreme leader the authority to dismiss the president purely on his own desire.

No need for that. It was clearly at Ayatollah Khomeini's insistence and instigation that Revolutionary Republic of Iran's first president, Abolhassan Banisadr, was impeached and several of his closest friends. Abolhassan Banisadr was warned by the Supreme Leader to do as he was told and he could keep the power of the presidency and Banisadr was also warned that if he opposed the Supreme Leader that 'the president would be done.'

Anyway, the bottom line is to hope for more positive developments than we have seen in the past.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites