Tag Archives: Hamid Baeidinejad

When you get played

Do you remember the feeling you get when you get played? Do you know of that inanimate feeling that gropes into your chest and rips out your heart? Well that is the feeling of getting played and the Iranians are getting exceedingly good at it. The Guardian article by Patrick Wintour, Diplomatic editor is off course really eager to aid a little by not informing his readers of the news we had 3 days earlier and I spoke about it at ‘The tradesman and the deal‘ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2019/11/05/the-tradesman-and-the-deal/), The information given there makes the entire ‘Growing calls in Iran to abandon nuclear treaty, ambassador warns‘ a little obsolete, moreover the statement by Hamid Baeidinejad giving us “it was government policy to remain in the treaty” whilst there were three transgression, beside the one where Ali Akbar Salehi, the head of Iran’s atomic energy organisation told us that “enrichment is now up to 5kg per day, up from 450g less than 60 days earlier“, perhaps Patrick Wintour, Diplomatic editor could enlighten us how this part, a part that the Guardian informed its reader of is missing from his baker sale of facts. (at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/07/growing-calls-in-iran-to-abandon-nuclear-treaty-ambassador-warns)

So when we see the part “Baeidinejad said the advocates of withdrawal from the non-proliferation treaty asked why Iran should be submitting to UN atomic agency verification of its programme when other countries did not recognise Iran’s right under the treaty to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes” my response would be “Well Mr Baeidinejad, in the last 40 years Iran has shown no lack of aggression, it has shown no lack of restraint, your nation is a direct threat to the State of Israel as well as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia“, so are you good Mr Baeidinejad, or do you need more? I gather that Mr Baeidinejad would need to be a glutton for punishment if he wants me to continue and that is before we get the Iranian acts via Hezbollah in the mix.

Patrick seems to have an interesting view of diplomacy. I see that there is no other option but to go with Mike Pompeo, the US Secretary of State in his statement “It is now time for all nations to reject this regime’s nuclear extortion and take serious steps to increase pressure. Iran’s continued and numerous nuclear provocations demand such action” there are two reasons for this, the first is off course because Mike Pompeo is right, the second one is that this action would lower stress levels in both the State of Israel as well as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It seems to me that this definite act will get a sum of three for the price of one, I remember a diplomatic reason as well, perhaps Patrick Wintour remembers that one (I can’t do all his diplomatic stuff, now can I).

There is optional a second benefit that we might get here, if we act in a demanding way from Iran, Hezbollah might get scared enough (it will make all kinds of claims) but in that setting, it will fear whatever the State of Israel throws at its borders, it will have a first need to fear, with Iran removed from acting, Hezbollah will fear what comes next and I believe that there is a first need to deal with that terrorist organisation. With the EU admitting: ‘EU admits preserving Iran nuclear deal ‘increasingly difficult’‘ the actions of the EU are becoming largely questionable, especially when we look at the damage that Iran can do with nuclear energy, their need to increase production of nuclear materials by 1000%, in light of all other elements give rise to a larger failing by the works and its diplomats to reign in the actions of Iran.

In my personal mind I believe that some diplomats have taken up roles of doubling or in some cases tripling their activities, isn’t it a perfect idea that a failure to control an element could be sold to both camps? And the EU has 27 camps to work; it must be heaven to be a diplomat under those conditions. Yet when Iran decides to use their materials even once, the consideration will be a lot larger than any diplomat can deal with. And there is the problem, Iran does not realise what they are playing with, merely that playing with those materials give them a seat at the grown up table, whilst millions have to accept a life of fear this situation to continue, that stage is over and it is high time that we recognise it.

I am willing to go one step further, any attack with nuclear material, no matter how it is done, should result in a nuclear attack on Iran, specifically Iranian oil reserves and Tehran, even if they have their excuses ready, even if they get Hezbollah to pull the trap on a small dirty bomb, we will be able to link the materials back, yet at that point some diplomat will be briefed to say that there was doubt on the materials used. At that point will you know that we have all been played! We will see evidence of being played before that, but that is the one non-undeniable act of getting played, I wonder how far some diplomats would be willing to play this game. You see that is the danger of a corporatocracy, its spreadsheets does not recognise the State of Israel, its spreadsheet is not loaded with food, it will think that there are always two food sources fish and beef, and when for Southern Europe fish is off the menu, their beef needs will increase, so more profit, that is the danger of a corporatocracy.

Consider the very last element, the idea that the article removed all mention of claims and considerations that we saw three days earlier and consider the fact that Iran has broken nuclear accords three times already and the EU is still not taking any actions, wonder about that part. Because we are running out of time and every day that we do not act, Iran gets to play another day, all whilst they increased production by 1000%, it is time to be less accommodating to Iran, and we need to make sure that they learn that any action against Israel of Saudi Arabia will be taken at the highest level and we will hit their oil reserves and Tehran, they left us no other option. When diplomats consider the conversation to be going forward when there is no forward momentum, or when they rely on old fashioned horse trading, we have a danger, you see, for the horse trade to continue, Iran would have to use nuclear materials and that is the one act we cannot allow, we are left with actions we would rather not consider and the diplomats call that plan B, but plan A is not working and whilst they remain in denial of the status of plan A, we get to live with the fear of Iran making a move, I believe that diplomacy has failed, it does not matter whether it was under orders of the Iranian military or the Iranian clergy, we get to push the button and leave Iran in a mess so that the next 5 generations also realise that there is an end to patience, and anyone considering the quote ‘But we are still talking to Iran, we are not there yet!‘ they need to realise that they became part of the problem and that they were never part of the solution.

Doesn’t it bite a little harder when diplomats are playing you?

 

1 Comment

Filed under Law, Media, Military, Politics

Blackadder to the rescue

Yes, now for something completely different. Today only partially continues yesterday’s conversation. The article ‘Iranian puppets‘ gives us (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2019/06/14/iranian-puppets/) where I mention: “I will never proclaim myself towards Iran“, I also made mention of the 15 bitches and a serve of coffee (between the lines), yet I will always proclaim towards evidence. Evidence is everything and even whilst Iran is the most likely guilty party, I tend to follow the evidence. The evidence puts us with Houthi forces, optionally there is enough circumstantial evidence involving Hezbollah, however, this seemingly changes today as more than one now give us: ‘UK joins US in accusing Iran of tanker attacks as crew held‘, here I remain cautious. You see, the US had graphics in the Iraq WMD part and that got us in different waters, even as much better questions should have been asked with that clusterfuck in the making. The UN secretary general António Guterres called for an independent investigation, a part I very much support.

The intelligence suckers tend to be driven by EGO and whoever their Commander in Chief is and that tends to be needlessly politically driven and there the not guilty tends to be a target, this is not the same as the innocent, but you see the impact I am referring to. In the UK the Foreign Office is giving us: “It is almost certain that a branch of the Iranian military – the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps – attacked the two tankers on 13 June. No other state or non-state actor could plausibly have been responsible“, I am willing to agree with this, however we have seen decently clear evidence that in more than one case Iranian flag officers acted on their extreme self, not with the official support from the actual government. It is the consequence of the Iranian clerics having direct access to Iranian generals and acting on what they proclaim is the will of Allah. Those who do not grasp that part are out in the cold, pointing at the wrong party and creating escalations.

So whilst the world goes with: “Iran did do it. You know they did it because you saw the boat. I guess one of the mines didn’t explode and it’s probably got essentially Iran written all over it … You saw the boat at night, successfully trying to take the mine off – and that was exposed” that is one view to have and it might be the correct view, yet we already have two parts here. The fact that the mine did not work implies that Iranian hardware has additional issues (or optionally a non-trained individual had access to that hardware and did not set it up correctly, which is actually more likely). The second part is that the act was about deniability, giving more need to point at a state actor, but was it one with clearance or one deciding that they had to make their government look good? The issue around deniability is set not in stone, but it seems to be on a tablet where someone else has the erase function active. And in this the US and the UK have played similar games over the last 10 years. So let’s set this in a speculative example.

The Iranian Ministry of Roads and Transportation is run by Ali Nikzad. He decided that the boats were transgressing on Iranian sovereign waters and ships are transport, so Ali Nikzad decided to give these transgressors a lesson, he gets a hold of officers who are eager for promotion and he plays the ‘I need to test our equipment for transportation of dangerous goods’, he gets mines (plural) and he tests the mines with an engineer who is not really qualified to operate mines. The attack works, but one mine was not set properly. Now he has a problem, because even as he got the equipment, he was not allowed to operate in the way he did as that was a military action, and he is merely a lowly Minister of Roads, commercial shipping lanes and Transportation, he now has to resolve the issue before it taints him and he gets someone to remove it (most likely the engineer who wrongly set the mine).

In addition to this, when we see how Belgium defused a mine situation according to the Dutch, will we see more or less reliability? Was it the image that made for the change?

All this a speculation, but the play is not that speculative, several players have engages in similar games, optionally the IRGC knew of the operation, and they did not act because their fingers were not in the cookie jar; they all have a scapegoat and there is no physical evidence to support any story that anyone tells.

This is one of the intelligence games that are out there and now we have a state actor and everyone (led by the US) are now pointing at the wrong state actor and the evidence is out there proving some right as the involved person is seemingly Iranian, but wrong as this is a bogus action in the first place. Now we see Hamid Baeidinejad (Iranian ambassador to the UK) all huffy and puffy because he is doing what Tehran told him to do and the game he plays looks good, because he truly believes that he is playing the proper game as instructed by Tehran and let’s face it, the US does not have a great track record when it comes to Intelligence data and parsing intelligence data to create actual verifiable data, do they. When in doubt, call the NSA at +1-301-688-6311, ask for Deputy Director Barnes (General Nakasone is often too busy according to his personal aide).

In all this, there is a surprising realisation, you see, the opposite is also an option and I wonder why it is not actively investigated, there is an opposing solution that takes Iran out of the equation and it is a solid solution that stretches 74,967 meters in length and could change the game, in addition to that it could hinder Iran to the larger degree, basically to the degree where Bandar Abbas would financially be decimated, its economy would plummet to below basement levels.

I wonder how willing the UAE would be to change the game to benefit their economy. Oman could optionally benefit as well, so there is a solution that could propel two nations, whilst freezing the Iranian economy twice over. You see, as I look at the state of play, a proxy war can go in two directions; you can be in denial as there is no proof, or you can go into proclamation to set the stage of something that is legally allowed, people look at the first and then ignore number two. I let you work out the puzzle and let you figure out what some never considered.

A Monty Python solution presented by Blackadder gives us the second option in two ways (at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzXhLp2wLQo) we see the approach to a literal following of orders then (at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBhN28eTuP8) we see the application of intelligence: “I beg leave to commence a private prosecution the accused for wasting the courts time“, and in all this, the stage is set and optionally correctly set, yet there is a range of issues that have not been addressed.

Some will go with the smoke and fire part and that is all good and fine, yet when did we get a proper investigation before pointing the finger (optionally through the slipping them the bird)? To let this sink in, let’s take a look at American accusations: “By labelling some of the high-level waste as low level, the US would save $40bn in cleanup costs across the nation’s entire nuclear weapons complex. The waste which has been stored in South Carolina, Washington and Idaho would be taken to low-level disposal facilities in Utah or Texas“, whilst the clear danger of radioactive waste has been out in the open for decades we are confronted with: “This administration is proposing a responsible, results-driven solution that will finally open potential avenues for the safe treatment and removal of the lower level waste. DOE is going to analyze each waste stream and manage it in accordance with Nuclear Regulatory Commission standards, with the goal of getting the lower-level waste out of these states without sacrificing public safety“. In this application of rules, we are not merely rephrasing the stage of what is regarded as ‘safe treatment‘, it changes the face of danger by diminishing risks on the need for cutting 40 billion. Now we can agree that 40 billion is serious cash, yet after it passed the facilities in Utah and Texas, what damage will be left behind because standards and definitions were changed by people who desperately need things to get cheaper? And when this backfires, how will the US afford the reparations that will be in excess of a trillion dollars easily? saving $40 with a decent certainty that it will cost you $1,000 around the corner is not clever, it does not save anyone anything and it decimates the quality and value of living in Utah and Texas, so how good is that step once the proper denials are in place?

The same can be said in the UK and their approach of Fracking, shale gas options. In a stage where the Netherlands has had: “A total of 127 damage reports were received after a fracking earthquake in Groningen on Sunday morning“, in addition “the TCMG receives around 200 damage reports per week. Over the past two weeks, the committee received at least 200 reports per day“. Also before I forget, when I was young and living in the Netherlands, Groningen was plenty of things, there was even a rare occurrence of an earthquake (once ever whilst I was in primary school), the entire stage of living in Groningen changed after Fracking, a clear change in values and cost of living as properties have diminished and the entire area is now a minefield of accusations and litigations, how much will that cost the government in addition to the claims they get? There is a second danger, if any of those chemicals ever make it into the groundwater; the Netherlands has some options, whilst the UK as an island does not. Dangers that we see give the rise towards people and politicians seem to regard the element of denial, a dangerous stage on two fronts, in the UK the danger for living expenses as it goes up by 1500% when UK tap water is no longer safe to drink; in the US where radiation contamination when found too late will have new long lasting disastrous effects.

Merely two elements that have the same stage; the stage of denial can be a very dangerous one and in Iran we see a stage where we cannot afford to give in to that danger. We need to be certain, an actual war, one that Iran will lose regardless will still impact and optionally disrupt crude oil paths for decades, consider the next decade when oil returns to prices like $163/barrel. The restoration of any economy becomes close to nil, unless you make money from the oil industry. That is why I want to make sure that Iran is properly dealt with and in all this, my plan B remains valid and an optional alternative path to increase pressure on Iran.

Nobody is saying, stating or implying that Iran is not involved, the issue is WHO placed the mine and there is where we get the issue. The US and the UK clearly know this. In case of the US we have Timothy James McVeigh. Now consider what would have happened if that attack was post 9/11? I am not stating that anything wrong was done by the FBI, I am however decently certain that the entire investigation would have had a dozen other turns and double turns. There is absolutely no guarantee that the same result would have been presented. I am not stating that the FBI did anything wrong, I am not stating that anything else happened.

To look at this setting we need to consider a quote by Counterpuch.org. Here we see: “The FBI suffered another debacle last Friday when an Orlando jury returned a not guilty verdict for the widow of Omar Mateen, who killed 49 people and wounded 53 in his attack on Orlando’s Pulse nightclub in June 2016. The biggest terrorism case of the year collapsed largely thanks to FBI misconduct and deceit” there are more sources. NPR Radio gives us: “the prosecution had withheld crucial information for the development of their argument. It was not until after the prosecution had rested its case, nearly two weeks after the trial opened, that prosecutors disclosed the information in an email last Saturday“, as well as “federal authorities had also opened an investigation of Seddique Mateen after the shooting, basing the probe on a series of money transfers he made to Turkey and Afghanistan not long before the massacre. The defense argued that without those details, the defense had been unfairly hamstrung — an assertion that Byron rejected. He denied the motion earlier this week and allowed the trial to proceed” denial of facts as well as denial access to facts, denial of due process in light of whatever reasoning was given and as denial of circumstances. At this point the widow of Omar Mateen was regarded as not guilty and there is no way of knowing whether this was just, correct or merely the consequence of stacking the deck knowingly and willingly.

When you consider that personal ego made these leaps of consideration, and we see the impact, the need for higher intelligence usage and the better investigation of what is happening in Iran and by which person becomes a lot more essential. When we see three players all in a stage to wage war on Iran (an idea that I do not oppose) lets at least do it for the right reasons. Doing the right thing based on flawed and incorrect intelligence corrupts the act and over time degrades the reasoning of the act. It is important to see that difference, and whilst there are optional paths to making the Iranian economy tanking it to the bottom of the Strait of Hormuz, I will remain in favour of doing that. You need to have seen war in all its majesty of cadavers and victims to appreciate alternative parts, only those who played call of duty might like a direct war, which will only last until you actually get to wash the blood out of your hands, that sweet smell of blood will follow your nose until the day you die.

Iran might be going into a wrong direction, yet we do not have to follow them like stupid lemmings, as I stated, I am not against setting a war against Iran, I merely want alternatives that gets us the same result. A proxy war goes both ways, we merely have to alter the signs on the entrance door; it is our door, so we get to do that.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Military, Politics