Monday, July 20, 2015

Iran's Supreme {Spiritual} Leader Speaks On Nuke Deal...

Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

(CNN)—Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei vowed Saturday that a newly negotiated deal on his country's nuclear program would not alter Iran's policies toward the United States.

In a televised address marking the start of Eid al-Fitr, the festival that follows the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, Khamenei said the agreement signed Tuesday on the nuclear issue would not affect Iran's stance on other regional or bilateral matters.

"Our policies toward the arrogant government of the United States will not be changed at all," he said.

Khamenei said the negotiations with the United States and other world powers on Tehran's nuclear program were an exception because they served Iran's national interest.

Families query deal

Bilateral issues currently at stake between Washington and Tehran include the fate of three Americans of Iranian background who are currently detained in Iran, as well as the status of a fourth American, who was a CIA contractor and remains missing after visiting the country.

Their families have questioned how a deal could have been made on the nuclear issue without addressing their cases.

U.S. President Barack Obama has strongly defended the landmark deal, which was the result of 20 months of talks, telling reporters Wednesday: "This deal is our best means of ensuring Iran does not get a nuclear weapon."

His real audience, however, was skeptical Democrats on Capitol Hill, who could join with Republicans to scuttle the complex agreement brokered in Vienna.

In a bid to bolster support, White House officials have been trumpeting the measure for the limits placed on uranium enrichment and broad access for international inspectors.

Obama also noted that he has met with families of some of the Americans held in Iranian custody, and said his administration was "working diligently to try to get them out."

So, is the Supreme {Spiritual}Leader of Iran simply playing to his more militant and radical base; much as American conservatives and libertarians play to their radical religious base or is he really representative of the greater Iranian population?

Our considered opinion is it is the former rather than the latter. We are interested in yours and why.


Via: Memeorandum


  1. I'm with you. I think this guy would actually like to see the Iranian people a little better off. His right wing has to be sated though, and unfortunately dumb hate-talk is what they need to hear.


  2. So his stance of eliminating Israel and death to America is just a ruse. Sure glad you two cleared that up.
    JM, he has had ample opportunity to make his peoples lives better. Stone women, kill infidels and support terrorism is what he stands but I guess some will believe anything.

  3. skudrunner, we have friends in the Middle East who do all that stuff. And no ne is saying we shouldn't take the Iranian right wing seriously. But to take political rhetoric at face value out of context is to be a dumbass.


  4. I think we can say basically the same thing. It will not alter our policies toward Iran.

  5. Scud: “I guess some will believe anything.

    Here is a brief tour for the willfully ignorant one who ignores the lessons of history:

    How many Americans recall the coup that overthrew Mohammed Moseddegh, the first democratically elected leader of Iran? In 1953, our own CIA aided and abetted the British in toppling a nascent democracy over access to Persian oil. “A cruel and imperialistic country” stealing from a “needy and naked people” were the words spoken by Mosaddegh at the International Court of Justice in the Hague. These words have informed Middle Eastern attitudes for more than half a century … [skip].

    Consider the impact of successive Western interventions in the Middle East over time - over oil. European colonialism is partly to blame. As colonial empires crumbled in the aftermath of WWI, European powers gave little thought to the historical schism between the Shiite and Sunni branches of Islam. Britain drew borders around rival ethnic enclaves and formed the modern nation state of Iraq - thus creating a recipe for future volatility.

    Failing to take these historical antecedents into account, America blundered into an occupation of Iraq that worsened an already unstable situation. In short order, the American regency of Paul Bremer swept away a long established order. Regime change brought in a new Shiite government that promptly disenfranchised the formerly dominant Sunnis. Thus began a cycle of sectarian conflict and civil war – rife with insurgencies, ethnic militias, car bombings, kidnappings, massacres, and more. Thus, the American misadventure started a sequence of events leading directly to the rise of ISIS.

    A headline de jour fails to capture the broader perspectives of history. What our news media never told us: Every bungled misadventure by a Western power has upset the status quo and upped the ante on radicalism and savagery
    ” (Aux Etats Sunnis, August 31, 2014).

    Sometimes the willful ignorance of a stealth troll is so breathtaking, it borders of criminal. Yes, criminal, because this is the same kind of stinking thinking that supported disastrous wars (resulting in untold death and destruction) – predicated on colonialism, nationalism, vainglorious exceptionalism, and bogus WMDs that never existed.

  6. Isn't this man part of the radical base you speak of, Les?

    Or is he as your wording might imply, some sort of political animal who looks for how the wind blows (at worst) or a pragmatist pulled toward extreme ends by the mullahs (at worse) ?

    1. This man if I'm not mistaken is similar to the Pope with respect to religous authority. Iran is a theocratic republic and he is the Spiritual leader and nominal head of state. Since 1979 America has been the "Great Satan" and thus an entire generation plus has grown up in Iran listening to over heated rhetoric. Very similar to what we hear in some respects right here in America.

      My point is Iran's leadership does not want it's people or it's nation annihilated and as Iranians are far from stupid the realize the USA can crush them should Iran actually threaten us.

      So yes dmarks, the SSL in Iran is talking just like candidate Walker is talking. It is political, it is irresponsible, and it is dangerous. But I believe level heads in Iran and the USA will prevail as relation thaw over time.

      Until we in the USA accept some responsibility for the situation in Iran and the Middle East it will continue to be a frosty situation. President Obama is smart (or perhaps wise is a better word) enough to understand this. Walker and his ilk are not.

  7. Legs,

    It does appear J Kerry has concerns as well, guess he just doesn't understand the situation as well as you. I am sure he will be calling you for clarification and advise. You might want to rethink ignorance of a stealth troll comment. I will assume you are referring to the war the DNC nominee supported and I did not. Or was it the Korean war or the Vietnam war or any other war we have entered into.

    U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said a speech by Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on Saturday vowing to defy American policies in the region despite a deal with world powers over Tehran's nuclear program was "very disturbing".

    1. I don't trust Iran, but I know a nuclear deal is the only way to keep the country honest.

      So says Joshua Fattal, one of three American hostages -- along with Shane Bauer and Sarah Shourd -- held captive by Iran for two years. Fattal continues:

      While in prison, I became a diligent student of the structure and rhetoric of Iranian propaganda. Their central claim is that the United States holds Iran to double standards, and thus, their criticisms are illegitimate … [skip] … With this argument about double standards, they counter criticisms made by the U.S. and other so-called “hegemonic powers.

      Scud stealth trolls this site and others in the same deceitful way Iran dispenses propaganda, i.e., raising double standards that promote false equivalences, deliberate errors of omission, and outright lies. In this context, excrement is more honest than scud. At least a pile of offal knows when it stinks.

    2. It IS disturbing. That rhetoric is awful. But it's rhetoric. I'd bet most of the common folks in crowds yelling this sort of thing don't believe any of it at all. But war? War would make them believe it. That's why war is always the LAST option.


    3. Legs,
      How do you say I stealth troll, I always represent myself and don't take myself seriously. Are you insulting me or J Kerry (aka swift boat). He is the one disturbed by the comments of the supreme leader. Our children will be able to see how the Iran deal works out.
      I always wake with a smile, does wonders for the sole.

    4. LOL! I'm sure it does wonders for the sole of your shoes skudrunner.

    5. Les,

      Glad you caught my spelling, it is the PC spelling because if I used soul it has a religious theme which might offend the anesthetist community. Just trying to be sensitive in my postings.

    6. Yeah, right skudrunner. If I believe that one I'm sure you have a bridge to try and sell me.

    7. PS: This sub thread is now closed. Your attempt to s9de track the post just died.

  8. Iran's President Rouhani:

    "Rouhani is a supporter of women's rights. In a speech after he was elected as the President of Iran, he said:

    "There must be equal opportunities for women. There is no difference between man and woman in their creation, in their humanity, in their pursuit of knowledge, in their understanding, in their intelligence, in their religious piety, in serving God and in serving people."

    Rouhani's government appointed Elham Aminzadeh, Shahindokht Molaverdi and Masoumeh Ebtekar as vice presidents; as well as Marzieh Afkham, the first female spokesperson for the foreign ministry. Rouhani has promised to set up a ministry for women."

    Iran has a long way to go before we see equal rights for women, but this is a beginning. Remember, fundamentalist religions of all stripes suppress women.

    Here's further information on the pre-and post-Iranian revolution that adds to what (O)CT(O)PUS posted. Scroll down to the heading "Veiling" to see that the re-veiling of Iranian women was always externally imposed. Quite a few Iranian women preferred the veil.


As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 3/4/18 Anonymous commenting has been disabled and this site has reverted to comment moderation. This unfortunate action is necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or irrelevant to the post subject.

While we appreciate and encourage all political viewpoints we feel no obligation to post comments that fail to rise to the standards of decency and decorum we have set for Rational Nation USA.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.