Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
June 26, 2017 Disclaimer: Please read.

Statements and opinions expressed in articles are those of the authors, not Truthdig. Truthdig takes no responsibility for such statements or opinions.

What’s Next for the Bill Cosby Sex-Assault Case?

Truthdig Bazaar
States of Emergency: The Object of American Studies

States of Emergency: The Object of American Studies

By Russ Castronovo (Editor), Susan Gillman (Editor)

meXicana Encounters

meXicana Encounters

Rosa Linda Fregoso

more items

Email this item Print this item

10 Myths About Iran—and Why They’re Dead Wrong

Posted on Mar 10, 2012
basheem (CC-BY)

An urban landscape in modern Iran.

By Jasmin Ramsey, AlterNet

This article originally appeared on AlterNet, which requested that Truthdig’s first published version be revised slightly, as below. The 10 boldface statements below are intended to contradict myths; they reflect the truth and not the erroneous assumptions that abound in the current atmosphere.

Square, Story page, 2nd paragraph, mobile
As media reports continue to imply that a military confrontation with Iran is closer than ever, rhetoric demonizing the Iranian government is rampant, particularly among Israeli leaders and most Republican presidential candidates—so much so that former Israeli Mossad director Efraim Halevy recently complained that Mitt Romney is “making the [Iran] situation worse” with his statements.

So it should come as no surprise that according to a 2012 Gallup poll, Iran is Americans’ “least favored nation” and has consistently ranked unfavorably since 1989. Gallup is not specific about why an overwhelming majority of respondents have such a low “overall opinion” of the Islamic Republic, but they suggest that “heavy scrutiny and criticism from the West over its nuclear programs” sheds light on American reasoning. Alarmist notions about Iran’s foreign and nuclear policy that spread through the media perpetuate a negative image that is oftentimes inaccurate—and help pave the path to war, which experts say would have disastrous consequences for Israel, the broader Middle East and the U.S.

AlterNet decided to look at 10 myths about Iran, many of them created by these alarmist notions—and explain why they’re dead wrong.

1. Iran does not have a nuclear weapon.


Square, Site wide, Desktop


Square, Site wide, Mobile
According to the Iranian government, the International Atomic Energy Agency and American intelligence assessments, the common assumption that Iran already has a nuclear bomb is wrong. Even Israeli intelligence agrees.

Yet 71 percent of Americans said “Yes” to the question, “Do you think Iran currently has nuclear weapons, or not?” in the last poll to ask that question. The question was asked a little over two years ago and public opinion could have become more accurately informed. Then again, when widely read newspapers like the Wall Street Journal publish weekly pieces suggesting that “evil” Iran is “building a nuclear bomb” (while justifying terrorism against Iranian citizens), and when Republican presidential contenders like Mitt Romney write that Iranian “Islamic fanatics” are “racing to build a nuclear bomb,” the truth can understandably become muddied for the average person.

2. Iran is not rushing to build a nuclear weapon.

The most prevalent suspicion about Iran is that it is trying to obtain breakout capability, or the ability to produce a nuclear weapon in a short period of time if it made the decision to do so. But that idea often results in unfounded alarmism about Iran’s nuclear program. Former Mideast-focused Pentagon official Colin Kahl told attendees during a packed Capitol Hill briefing in February that there’s a lot of “hyperbole and hyperventilation about Iran’s program” based on estimated timeframes about its alleged nuclear ambitions.

But Kahl emphasized that “timelines” estimating how quickly Iran could obtain a nuclear weapon depend on Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei making a “final decision” that “we have no evidence that he’s made, and we have every reason to believe we would detect if he did.” The Georgetown associate professor went on to point out that because of the very real existential threats the Iranians would face if they decided to start building a weapon, “we’re probably a number of years away” from the point at which Khamenei would “feel comfortable enough” in making that decision. According to nuclear nonproliferation expert Daryl Kimball, the main aim with Iran should accordingly be to affect Iranian “political will.”

Historian and Middle East expert Juan Cole also explained this week that Iran’s main decision-maker, Ali Khamenei, has consistently forbidden, on the basis of Islam, the acquisition of nuclear weapons. Cole says that if people believe Khamenei is being “dishonest,” they should prove it. Finally, as veteran Iran-focused journalist Scott Peterson recently illustrated, “breathless” assertions that Iran is speeding head-on toward nuclear capability “or worse” have been heard for decades while related predictions about imminent Iranian threats have “come and gone” unrealized.

3. Iran is not ruled by “irrational” leaders.

This is particularly true when it comes to Iranian foreign policy—and that’s according to America’s top-ranking military officer Gen. Martin Dempsey, who told CNN last month that the United States is “of the opinion that the Iranian regime is a rational actor.” Former head of the Israeli Mossad Meir Dagan recently echoed that view, telling CBS that, “The regime in Iran is a very rational one.”

In January, director of National Intelligence James Clapper informed a Senate Intelligence Committee that Iran was using a “cost-benefit analysis” with its nuclear program decision-making process: “[I]f the decision has been made to press on with a nuclear weapon — and there are certain things they have not done yet to eventuate that — that this would be based on a cost-benefit analysis.” He added that the U.S. does not believe that the decision to build a nuclear weapon has been made by Iran’s leadership yet. And in February, the chief of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Lieutenant General Ronald Burgess, also told the Senate Armed Services Committee that “The [DIA] assesses Iran is unlikely to initiate or intentionally provoke a conflict”—another indication that Iran’s decision-making process is a calculated one.

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Join the conversation

Load Comments

By prosefights, April 1, 2012 at 5:07 pm Link to this comment

Google ‘iran cornerstone of possible ww3’

Serious stuff?

Report this
moonraven's avatar

By moonraven, March 16, 2012 at 5:04 pm Link to this comment

Your place is not HERE, so apparently I did not.

Report this
IMax's avatar

By IMax, March 16, 2012 at 3:44 pm Link to this comment


You couldn’t be more right.  You’ve put me in my place.

Report this
moonraven's avatar

By moonraven, March 16, 2012 at 12:03 pm Link to this comment

I accept your apology for engaging me with your trolling.

Don’t waste my time again.

Report this
IMax's avatar

By IMax, March 16, 2012 at 5:16 am Link to this comment

Inherit The Wind,

I always chuckle when I see people quote Chico Marx in support of their views.  I chuckle thinking how each and every one of us understand how people’s eyes do in fact lie, regularly.  How things are often not what they seem.  How 10 people witnessing the same event will offer 10 different perspectives.  Often in direct opposition to one another.  It’s an interesting phenomena.

Anyhow, you may be right.  But just imagine for a short time the ways in which you may be wrong.  What if some people within the Iranian intelligence community is culpable in the Sept. 2001 attacks?  What if there are people within the highest levels of government that were at least knowledgeable of these activities?  And not just of 9/11, but the U.S. Embassy bombings and Khobar Towers as well.  How may this change your personal perspective of Iran’s peace overtures?  Imagine Iran’s apparent helpfulness and outstretched hands after 9/11 if only half of all outstanding questions of culpability are satisfied?  The evidence on how you may be wrong is, well, considerable.

You strike me as someone who will argue in favor of the law.  Honestly,  how do we explain the 9/11 Commission findings (pp. 240-41)?  How do we explain the years of independent investigations and ultimate conclusions, from distinctly separate legal proceedings, on the subject of culpability?  There is a terrific body of evidence to draw on.  All traceable to quantifiable sources.

Have you studied the 9/11 Commission findings to their end?  Are you satisfied and able to explain those findings today?  Have you looked over the evidence and testimony in the court proceedings I mentioned?  The testimony and evidence is quite compelling.  You may want to incorporate this new information into your conclusions.

Report this
IMax's avatar

By IMax, March 16, 2012 at 5:12 am Link to this comment


You’re right.  Sorry to have wasted your time.

Report this

By prosefights, March 15, 2012 at 6:44 pm Link to this comment

We’re trying to get

finished by the first of the year.


This is all about energy we continue to believe, not nukes.

Report this
moonraven's avatar

By moonraven, March 15, 2012 at 4:52 pm Link to this comment


You can’t read—that’s why googling doesn’t ring your chimes.

I said nothing about strolls through parts of Iran.  I said VERY specifically that I have only been to Kish Island, which is a free zone and therefore does not require a visa.

US citizens are not awarded visas to visit Iran.  If you were not so ignorant you would remember that the last 3 who entered there without visas were put on trial as spies.

And, that, logically leads me to the obvious conclusion:  that I am the only person on the board who has ever been to any part of Iran.

Now, pathological pest, if you want to claim that you have—you will only dig your pit deeper.

Since you have no connection whatsoever to Iran, I see no reason to bother filling you in on several thousand years of its history.  Nor do I have any obligation whatsoever to do so.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, March 15, 2012 at 3:35 pm Link to this comment

“Who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?”—Chico Marx

I remember being impressed by Iran’s action in the wake of 9/11, by their moderate
government, and the GOLDEN opportunity to repair relations.  Despite rhetoric, we are
natural allies, disrupted by our stupid actions overthrowing their legit govt in favor of the
Shah.  Then in the flurry of revolution, their stupid actions toward us.  But we had our
chance.  I remember watching that SOTU by Bush and screaming “NOOOOO!!!” at the
TV when he named Iran to the Axis of Evil.

Since then the Bush gang has tried in every way to convince me, and everyone else, that
what I saw I didn’t see.  Not after the fact, while it was happening.

So, it not being real, well, that’s just butt-covering crap that the GOP is expert in.

Report this
IMax's avatar

By IMax, March 15, 2012 at 6:53 am Link to this comment

Regardless of my personal disdain for the Bush Administration, I would caution anyone against whole-hardheartedly believing that Iran sought “peace and good relations” with the USA after 9/11. 

Regardless of various media reports of the time, all reciting the same anonymous CIA source, I’ve found little real evidence that Iran did anything extraordinary in aid to the United States.  I have, however, seen a fair amount of evidence that Iran moved quickly after Sept. 2001 to counter Saudi and Pakistani influences in Afghanistan.  Those moves clearly served Iranian self-interests and, at least for the time, did appear to run parallel to the interests of the West.

It’s also worth noting, at least in an “informational” context, that two independent U.S. Civil Courts (Manhattan/District of Columbia) found The Islamic Republic of Iran somewhat culpable in the Sept 2001 attack inside the United States.  There is value in researching those court documents in order to give a richer and wider view of the circumstances leading up to, and following, the events of 2001 and into Afghanistan. - Also see the 9-11 Commission report covering the same subject.

Saying that Iran sought peace with the United States after Sept. 2001 is easy.  Proving that particular narrative, beyond a few media reports citing a CIA source, is a great deal more problematic.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, March 15, 2012 at 3:58 am Link to this comment

Here’s an 11th:
Iran’s Islamic Republic never wanted peace and good relations with the USA.

Following the attacks of 9/11, Iran was eager to help the US get rid of Al Qaeda and the loonies supporting them in the Taliban.  Despite the RW press that described the Taliban and the Iranians as the same they never were.  Iran was VERY supportive in many ways.

Then George W Bush spat in their pro-offered hand. In his first SOTU speech in January of 2002, just a couple of months after we invaded Afghanistan, with Iranian help, he labeled 3 nations the Axis of Evil.  North Korea, Iraq, and Iran!

The evil neo-cons didn’t care about facts. Didn’t care about the changing world situation.  They wanted an “enemy”...and they got one!

This may have been one of the most criminally stupid foreign policy statements in American history.

Report this

By prosefights, March 14, 2012 at 4:42 pm Link to this comment

Perhaps a bit off topic but related to natural gas, energy and liberal arts ‘educated’ BS.

The world may have nat gas supply problems?

New Mexico nat gas production is declining as reported by NM tech.

Outside our expertise. 

Google ‘embedded controller forth for the 8051 family’ which covers topics within our expertise.


Report this
IMax's avatar

By IMax, March 14, 2012 at 2:06 pm Link to this comment


Your fictive stroll through parts of Iran sounds wonderful.  The trouble with Wikipedia, as you’ve just learned, is that it typically won’t capture the types of questions I raised quickly and efficiently enough for your type of playfulness. 

Most reformist candidates in the last majlis election had been disqualified.  The elections were essentially a showdown between Iran’s two dominant conservative camps.  Neither secured a clear victory.

Both sides sought a strong voter turnout and a clear margin of victory so that they could point to the election results as evidence that the public supports their respective policies. But despite reports of widespread election fraud and exaggerated turnouts, neither the populist candidates nor the pro-clerical elite was able to claim a decisive victory. The election served as a check on Ahmadinejad’s ambitions, and the structural advantages of the office of the supreme leader will help Khamenei as he seeks a decisive strike against Ahmadinejad.

Report this
moonraven's avatar

By moonraven, March 14, 2012 at 12:02 pm Link to this comment


Google that info!

Not only are you an untravelled troll with clear deficiencies in your grasp of geopolitics, you can’t google?

Pathetic pimp for patriotism.

Report this

By heterochromatic, March 13, 2012 at 8:15 pm Link to this comment

I been to resort island so I is a expert an’ dissserve more votes than any

except maybe for

Abdolfattah Soltani

Shirin Ebadi

Roxana Saberi

Zahra Kazemi

and a cast of far too many….

Report this
IMax's avatar

By IMax, March 13, 2012 at 5:11 pm Link to this comment

moonraven, - “Well, Imax, I am the only person posting here who has actually BEEN to Iran.”


That makes you the resident TruthDig expert.  I would think you would first ask others here if they’ve been to Iran before reaching your conclusion.

Anyhow, I’m curious. Iran’s parliamentary elections took place March 2.  Why was it most reformist politicians didn’t participate?  Do you happen to know which of the two major factions gained more seats in Parliament?  I can’t recall the names of each of the party leaders.  Can you help me out?

Report this
moonraven's avatar

By moonraven, March 13, 2012 at 4:50 pm Link to this comment

Well, Imax, I am the only person posting here who has actually BEEN to Iran.

Admittedly, only to Kish Island, as Iran is not in the habit of issuing visas to folks with US passports.  But Kish Island is a free zone and there are flights daily from Dubai.

Most folks go there to practice diving.  Some of us went to buy textiles and miniatures and talk politics to Iranis. 

There are of course many Iranis in Bahrain—some of them run an Irani Market (flea market, handcrafts, rugs, miniatures, etc) south of Manama.  Actually, I hired some well-educated (PhD) Iranis to give classes when I was in Bahrain. 

Iran considers Bahrain to be part of its territory—but unfortunately it has been under the dictatorship of the Al Khalifa bandits and pirates since early in the 19th century.

Anything else?

Report this
IMax's avatar

By IMax, March 13, 2012 at 4:31 pm Link to this comment

“10 Myths About Iran”

moonraven, - “If Iran is the issue here”???


You indicated you are highly educated.  What gives?

Report this
moonraven's avatar

By moonraven, March 13, 2012 at 2:01 pm Link to this comment

Sorry, but infantilisms are not part of my vocabulary.

Now for that tasty ribeye….

I leave you to the rancid catch of the day.

Report this

By heterochromatic, March 13, 2012 at 1:41 pm Link to this comment

it’s all that you lame and idiotic guess merited, moonie.

Report this
moonraven's avatar

By moonraven, March 13, 2012 at 1:34 pm Link to this comment

As for Imax’s other posting identity, the execrable Hettie the Whoopiecushion:  Go fish?  That’s the best you can do for a comeback?

Pathetic beyond even pathetic gringo standards (sic).

Patrick:  To be intellectually lazy, one first must have an intellect.  Hettie the Hotcrossbun has none.

Report this
moonraven's avatar

By moonraven, March 13, 2012 at 1:29 pm Link to this comment


If Iran is the issue here, why is it that you come here to circle jerk your other identity and do not address the issue?

What’s sauce for the goose goes double for the gander.

I am on Iran’s side in this conflict.  That clear enough for you?

Report this

By gerard, March 13, 2012 at 11:44 am Link to this comment

Don’t look back!  This string may turn your stomach.

Report this

By heterochromatic, March 13, 2012 at 11:35 am Link to this comment

suisse ma tube, chien.

you go elsewhere and make your case or just go chase your tail.

Report this
blogdog's avatar

By blogdog, March 13, 2012 at 10:45 am Link to this comment

go here make your your case there, you
foul-mouthed, pathetic, little, bleeding, sod-ass piece of worthless, dispicable
tripe - toi: personna non grata - c’est finis!

Report this

By heterochromatic, March 13, 2012 at 10:29 am Link to this comment



sometimes the shit you pass on is too stupid even to be….... the shit you pass on.

pass on trying to pass this level of scurrilous crap next time

Report this

By heterochromatic, March 13, 2012 at 10:26 am Link to this comment

Patsy, read the leveritts ’ post again…..carefully….. it relies on saying that Obama
didn’t mention all the things that were assumed to be part of the deal where Iran
stops enrichment….....including the stopping of enrichment.

AND it never tries to say that Obama agreed to the deal…. which is what Bleak
tries to pass off as reality.

Report this
blogdog's avatar

By blogdog, March 13, 2012 at 9:23 am Link to this comment

RE: ...unless you really want war!!! - getting warmer - failed states, laid
open for globalist exploitation

Report this
Blackspeare's avatar

By Blackspeare, March 13, 2012 at 9:10 am Link to this comment

Though it was mentioned by another poster, it is important that it should be

During the initial stages of the US invasion of Afghanistan, Iran did help with
intelligence and the policing of the Taliban.  Now Iran was no friend of the
Taliban so it was in their best interest to help, but help it was nonetheless.  And
for their efforts, Bush in his famous SOTU address, lumped Iran with Iraq and
PRNK as the “Axis of Evil.”  The Iranians was stunned, but still in 2003 after the
invasion of Iraq, Iran still wanted to talk because they were scared!  This goes to
show how inept Bush and the State Department was because getting your
adversary to negotiate because of pressure is exactly what you want——that is
unless you really want war!!!

Report this
blogdog's avatar

By blogdog, March 13, 2012 at 9:06 am Link to this comment

FEBRUARY 10, 2012   DAVE
By Pete Papaherakles

Could gaining control of the Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran (CBI)
be one of the main reasons that Iran is being targeted by Western and Israeli
powers? As tensions are building up for an unthinkable war with Iran, it is
worth exploring Iran’s banking system compared to its U.S., British and Israeli

Some researchers are pointing out that Iran is one of only three countries left in
the world whose central bank is not under Rothschild control. Before 9-11
there were reportedly seven: Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Cuba, North Korea
and Iran. By 2003, however, Afghanistan and Iraq were swallowed up by the
Rothschild octopus, and by 2011 Sudan and Libya were also gone. In Libya, a
Rothschild bank was established in Benghazi while the country was still at

Report this
IMax's avatar

By IMax, March 13, 2012 at 6:04 am Link to this comment

It still seems to me that more people here should write a few words about Iran when the subject is Iran.  Avoiding all discussions of Iran, it seems to me, misses the point entirely.

For the past two decades, Iran’s nuclear program has been a proliferation concern to the United Nations Security Council. Given that Iran is awash with oil and gas reserves and regularly flares off vast quantities of natural gas, Tehran’s decision to allocate a major portion of its infrastructure investment to develop nuclear power plants has been puzzling. In addition, proliferation warning flags have been raised by Iran’s clandestine attempts to acquire uranium-enrichment equipment and fissile material.  Combined with its support for Middle Eastern terrorist groups and the regime’s efforts to undermine the Middle Eastern peace process, the United nations has special concerns regarding the Iranian nuclear program.

Until recently, this international and legal consolation had placed few real impediments in the way of Tehran’s ability to produce a nuclear arsenal. This drift was slowed, however, when a spate of revelations, from undeclared importation of nuclear materials and equipment to covert uranium-enrichment activity, convinced key states that Iran has not been forthcoming about the intents and extent of its nuclear program and that the program must be stopped. The resulting tide of international pressure crested with a September 12 International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) resolution demanding that Tehran come clean. The external threats resonated inside Iran, adding additional pressure on an unpopular government to weigh its next steps carefully and spurring a strong and unprecedented public debate about Iran’s nuclear program.

Iranian representatives and sympathizers abroad point to the need to counter Israel’s alleged nuclear arsenal as a justification for its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Despite the Iranian rhetoric, the main strategic rationale for the Iranian nuclear program has not been to counter Israel’s nuclear arsenal but to bolster its role as a regional power and to counter Iraq, Iran’s principal threat until 2003. Iran is located in a nuclear neighborhood—next to Russia, Pakistan, and India—and seeks to remain an important regional power. The fact that the Iranian nuclear weapons program started under the shah’s regime, which at the time maintained excellent cooperation with the United States and Israel, is solid evidence that Israel has not been the main motivating factor for Iranian nuclear ambitions. In fact, Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons has made it a more likely target of Israel.

The domestic Iranian debate over the nuclear weapons program is not a particularly informed debate, and it seems that many government officials are not even aware of Iran’s NPT obligations or the dangers inherent in the possession of nuclear weapons and how Tehran’s actions can actually spur an arms race in its vicinity. Most participants in the debate and the general public confuse the right to develop nuclear energy with the right to develop nuclear weapons. The debate is very rhetorical and value-laden in speaking of “rights,” and many Iranians see possession of nuclear weapons as a symbol of prestige. Because much of the current regime’s opposition is very nationalistic, there is a patriotic appeal to acquisition of nuclear weapons. However, when faced with the question as to whether this current regime should acquire nuclear weapons, especially in light of the fact that security issues are controlled by a shadowy and domestically dangerous inner-regime, many in Iran are opposed. It seems that the scientific-technical community that is developing the weapons program (many of them overlap with the energy sector) is predominantly secular, and many of its members are not enthusiastic supporters of the regime and are relatively open to engagement on the nuclear issue.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, March 13, 2012 at 3:51 am Link to this comment


You prove intellectually lazy as always.

Report this

By gerard, March 12, 2012 at 8:46 pm Link to this comment

For anyone nterested in exchanging facts for fiction, a while back down the line I pointed out the vital usefulness of the Internet where anyone can go to find some facts to replace myths—if they are educated to know the difference.
  That’s a big “if”—but be that as it may, we are still much better off with the free and open internet with its vast store of information than with what some authority tells us is “nothing but the truth” and we can’t check it out anywhere.
  That’s what we will come to if we mess around with censorship and prosecuting whistle-blowers, etc.
  Better mess around with more education so everybody can smarten up and learn to tell truth from lies. We won’t be free unless we stand up and yell very loudly, by the millions, and defend freedom of information and speech at all times everywhere (with the fewest possible, most widely agreed upon limitations.

Report this

By heterochromatic, March 12, 2012 at 7:58 pm Link to this comment

Black——And then again in 2009, Brazil and Turkey had an agreement with Iran
and Obama had written a letter saying he agreed with the proposal in which Iran
would ship all its LEU to Turkey in return for Nuclear reactor fuel pads.——-


you wanna try and find that agreement? it’s somewhere in the non-existent file.

Report this

By prosefights, March 12, 2012 at 7:32 pm Link to this comment

I was a higher algebra student of professor aboulghassem zirakadeh in the summer of 1958 at the university of colorado.

I learned lots which I hope you see.

Report this

By prosefights, March 12, 2012 at 7:01 pm Link to this comment

‘No wonder Iran doesn’t trust us’

NS Sherlock.

M Raahii emailed that he does trust us.

Google ‘ryan crocker j orlin Grabbe.

Other intersting stuff emerging on the natural gas front.

Report this
Blackspeare's avatar

By Blackspeare, March 12, 2012 at 6:44 pm Link to this comment

Well, it looks like we might be back to 2003! Unknown to most, in 2003 Iran made an overture, through the Swiss, that they were willing to negotiate on all matters important to them and the USA including stopping support for Hamas, disarming Hezbollah, enriching uranium, and even willing to accept the Beirut Accord in which all Arab states would recognize Israel and peace in return for Israel withdrawing from the occupied lands, establishing a Palestinian state and negotiating a reasonable right of return. It should be mentioned that US forces had Iran surrounded in Iraq and Afghanistan at that time and Iran was fearful of an invasion so Iran was in a compromising position so to speak. The Bush administration turn this overture down flat saying they would not negotiate with “evil” and why negotiate when the USA could get what it wants by force! They even admonished the Swiss for carrying the proposal! By the end of Bush’s presidency they realized what a terrible mistake they made! Maybe Obama can resurrect that proposal from Iran, though now they’re mighty close to having the bomb.”

And then again in 2009, Brazil and Turkey had an agreement with Iran and Obama had written a letter saying he agreed with the proposal in which Iran would ship all its LEU to Turkey in return for Nuclear reactor fuel pads.  But Congress, behind Obama’s and the state department’s backs, authorized additional sanctions just two days before the proposal was to be announced and Obama withdrew his agreement.

No wonder Iran doesn’t trust us!

Report this
IMax's avatar

By IMax, March 12, 2012 at 2:44 pm Link to this comment


Your first reaction to this article (not too much unlike ardee) was a critique of the author for not seeing the world as you see it.  If memory serves your second was a thought toward Libya.

I asked why it is, when Iran is the issue, nearly no one speaks of Iran.  I can point out the same phenomena when the subject is Libya and Qaddafi.

So I’m asking: Why is it when the subject is China, for example, very few people here actually discuss China?

Report this

By heterochromatic, March 12, 2012 at 12:38 pm Link to this comment

no, moonie,  go fish.

Report this
moonraven's avatar

By moonraven, March 12, 2012 at 11:51 am Link to this comment

I believe that Imax and Hettie are the same hateful poster.

I have seen this maneuver before, guys.  It stinks no matter which site it’s on.

Report this
moonraven's avatar

By moonraven, March 12, 2012 at 11:48 am Link to this comment

Ardee:  If you can refute one thing I have ever written on this site I will eat your shorts.

If anyone here is a bully and a liar, it is you.

Report this
moonraven's avatar

By moonraven, March 12, 2012 at 11:41 am Link to this comment

Hettie:  There is only one poster on this site who has the credentials to make an issue of folks’ grammar and syntax, and that is THIS POSTER, with a PhD in English and 50 plus years as a professional writer. editor and educator.

It is NOT you.

Moreover, so long as I can understand what the poster is trying to say, I couldn’t possibly give a damn about his or her syntax and grammar.

And if I don’t understand it, I say so—IF and only IF I am INTERESTED in the post.  Otherwise, I let it go.

But then of course I am not being paid by the post like you are.Nor am I only here to harrass other posters who actually KNOW something about geopoltics.

Report this
moonraven's avatar

By moonraven, March 12, 2012 at 11:31 am Link to this comment

Rehmat:  The curent president of Iran is very smart and he has a sense of humor.  Those are two of the reasons that he and Chavez get on so well.

Those two guys are head and shoulders above most of the other leaders on the planet.

The griingos have only elected pond scum since Jimmy Carter.

Report this
moonraven's avatar

By moonraven, March 12, 2012 at 11:25 am Link to this comment

Hettie:  the gringos financed and “trained” the folks who sodomized Gadafi and shot him.  Just like they have done everywhere else.

Give me a break from your pimping for patriotism and whites-uber-alles.

Report this

By heterochromatic, March 12, 2012 at 10:42 am Link to this comment

rehmat——”“I don’t know how many times I’ve said to my friends – and they
can verify it. I wish we had a president as decent as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad…”

——- hilarious lyting bullshit.  That Mahmoud is a religious fanatic, lying,
fascist murdering piece of shit ..... just as was Khomeini.

he does display a greasy little smile as emits his venomous little lies,
however….and that makes him such a cute little spokesmodel for the vile
Iranian regime as he tells the world that iran doesn’t have any problem with
homosexuality ...unlike the decadent West…..and Iran treats women with
respect….unlike how the West makes whores of all women.

fuck him…. and you as well for trying to peddle that mouthful of turds.

Report this
blogdog's avatar

By blogdog, March 12, 2012 at 9:15 am Link to this comment

US Think Tank Devises Plan To Sell Fake Iran Threat
Admits Iran is not a threat to either US or Israeli security, devises narrative to
sell unnecessary war to public

Tony Cartalucci
Tuesday, March 6, 2012

The corporate media has recently portrayed a narrative where we see the West
apparently warning Israel against a unilateral attack on Iran. It appears that
Israel is intent on “going it alone” despite the wishes of its “more rational”
Western sponsors. Recently, the Wall Street Journal reported in their article,
“U.S., Israel Pull Closer on Iran,” that, “Israeli officials, meanwhile, said that
President Barack Obama’s public and private acknowledgment of the Jewish
state’s sovereign right to defend itself was a crucial gain as the two countries
seek to deter Tehran,” in regards to Iran’s alleged nuclear program.

To the average reader, it would seem that both the US and Israel agree that Iran
is an imminent threat against which Israel and the United States simply have
differing views on how to counter. In reality, this is a premeditated, deceitful
act, already clearly articulated since 2009 in a signed document, on how both
nations plan on duping the world into accepting an unnecessary war.


Report this

By balkas, March 12, 2012 at 7:44 am Link to this comment

hetero, yes,
influence of religion on ideology on which russian system of rule is founded; on its laws, education, freedoms, etc., needs an honest study.
let’s also keep in mind that all systems of rule [governances] are founded on a thinking; usually called “ideologies”.
but even churches or organized religions are founded on thinking/ideating. let’s also keep i mind that no ideology can ever be proven right
or wrong—it just IS!
in case of killing people—and in view that we do not have the truth about it or any other thinking for that matter—we err on the side of
not killing [or torturing, humiliating, debasing, exploiting, etc.] innocent or even guilty people.

the problem then is not the ideation/thinking itself—the problem is in evaluating any ideation as eternally true and blindly carrying it out.
so just a bit of doubt that, say, US ideology may not be true or realistic and parts of it such as god bless america, greatness of america, we
are nation of laws, land of the free and the brave, etc., even less so, would go a long way in rendering america less or much less bellicose,
unequal, tyrannical, greedy, etc.
as for china, there the religion hardly exist. i wonder if it has any influence on governing china?
i understand that chinese communism [there is more than one kind] is very strong on punishing corruption, embezzlement, nepotism, etc.
it seems you can wind up dead for any of that. in US, most egregious theft is actually sanctioned by laws.
using such thinking would also solve worldjewry-arab or israeli-palestinian conflict and not just iranian-west, et al conflicts.
sanity say there is a solution for every conflict—insanity says there is no solution save mine. thanks

Report this
IMax's avatar

By IMax, March 12, 2012 at 7:13 am Link to this comment

The headline, Myths About Iran, represents an article on the subject of Iran. 

I’m still curious; why is it that only hetero took the time to comment on the subject at hand?  Why does nearly everyone on TruthDig so steadfastly avoid talking about Iran?

Is it racism?  Ignorance?  Antipathy?  What is it?

Report this

By balkas, March 12, 2012 at 6:44 am Link to this comment

saying that in US 99% are against the onepercent appears not adequate/accurate
so, my label “World Onepercent” is also inaccurate/inadequate.
and the label “World Right” pittied against “World Left” appears also confusing.
eg, taliban and iranian godologists are on the Right, but are in military conflict
with the world right.
however, there is no doubt that most countries are allied with US onepercent.
and the ones that are not, such as cuba, venezuela, bolivia, n.korea, vietnam are
very weak econo-militarily-diplomatically to affect US or its strong allies such as
UK, germany, and france.
so, the label US&Allies; seems to fit reality quite well. and china and russia are not
in this alliance. thanks

Report this

By heterochromatic, March 12, 2012 at 6:40 am Link to this comment

balkas—- your ideas about Russia and China ....and their leadership and religion
are all in need of further research.

Report this

By prosefights, March 12, 2012 at 5:06 am Link to this comment

March 11, 2012

The Spymaster: Meir Dagan on Iran’s threat
In a rare interview, ex-chief of Mossad Meir Dagan speaks out against a preemptive strike against Iranian nuclear facilities anytime soon.

Report this

By ardee, March 12, 2012 at 4:57 am Link to this comment

While it is good that outlets like TD allow truths to be posted, it is sad that a more universal way to spread such truths does not exist.

Even here we must contend with liars and neocons distorting said truths and attempting to minimize it and derail the conversation. Hetero and Moonraven chief among them.

Report this

By prosefights, March 12, 2012 at 4:46 am Link to this comment

Leslie Stahl 60 minutes audio Sunday March 11, 2012 audio interview with former Mossad chief.

Volume had to be turned up in Control Panel on our desktop.

Google ‘ryan crocker j orlin grabbe’ for history of our interest.

Report this

By balkas, March 12, 2012 at 12:11 am Link to this comment

the messages in the part of one of my posts you quoted appears very clear.

one of them is that one shld not accept as true US/world one percent’s accusations
against iran or any disobedient land.
this time i also add that even if evidence [and whatever it may be] given us by
US/allies is true and russia and china would accept it as true, this still does not
represent a casus belli.
another one is that only ICT should be prosecuting leaders accused of having
perpetrated crimes against humanity.
and it is easy to figure out that the greatest war criminals would never agree with this
proposal. and i may add, we all know who these war criminals are.

did you understand the two myths that i wrote about in one of my posts?
one is that US has the right to attack a country.
and that it can justify any aggression basing them on mere rationalization or a
manufactured truth and not on any casus belli.

Report this

By balkas, March 11, 2012 at 11:33 pm Link to this comment

as far as i know, chinese rulers [or china’s 1%] are not rich or super rich. and they are not
religious. nor are religions/plutocrats there as influential in governing the country as are the
religions/their leaders/plutocrats in arab and western lands.
russia, on the other hand, is not allied with lands like japan, germany, US, et al. its one
percent does not wage wars, spread vicious lies, issue military threats, bomb/invade so
many countries as much as US/allies’ one percent.
so, any thoughtful reader could see that the label “world one percent” does not include
russian one percent. 
so, clearly, the label ‘world’s one percent means” means the ruling classes in all lands whose
governances [systems of rule] are founded on the supremacist ideology.
chinese system of rule is founded on equality and not inequality as is the case with much of
asia, s.america, afrika, europe, and n. america.

Report this
blogdog's avatar

By blogdog, March 11, 2012 at 10:33 pm Link to this comment


Panetta suggests OK from UN more important than Congress Approval when it
comes to War?

Uploaded by nospinmedia on Mar 7, 2012
See Entire Exchange

Watch the video and make your own judgement. He never says congress isnt
needed, but suggests that international approval seems to be more

Report this
blogdog's avatar

By blogdog, March 11, 2012 at 9:50 pm Link to this comment

Pentagon already planning for strikes against Iran and Syria according to
senior officials

Schwartz (credit: S. Vemmer/Times News Service)
Madison Ruppert, Contributing Writer - Activist Post

According to senior Pentagon officials, American military forces are already
planning for possible strikes against Iran and Syria utilizing both conventional
weaponry and cyber warfare as the situation in both nations only seems to be
getting worse by the day.

Lieutenant General Herbert Carlisle, deputy chief of staff for operations, plans
and requirements with the U.S. Air Force informed a March 8 investors
conference sponsored by McAleese and Associates and Credit Suisse that the
Department of Defense is exploring their options for military actions.

Carlisle’s statement came on the heels of an interview with the U.S. Secretary of
Defense Leon Panetta for the National Journal during which he confirmed that
the Pentagon is indeed planning for strikes on Iran.

This also came in the wake of Panetta saying that he thinks that the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) should begin debating the issue of military
intervention in Syria, although NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh
Rasmussen claims that that discussion has not yet begun.

While Iran repeatedly denies any intent to develop nuclear weapons and Panetta
himself has confirmed that they are not currently developing weapons on two
separate occasions, the alleged developments in their program continues to
give lawmakers and others the fuel they need to call for war.


Madison Ruppert is the Editor and Owner-Operator of the alternative news and analysis database End The Lie and has no affiliation with any NGO, political party, economic school, or other organization/cause. He is available for podcast and radio interviews. Madison also now has his own radio show on Orion Talk Radio from 8 pm—10 pm Pacific, which you can find HERE.  If you have questions, comments, or corrections feel free to contact him at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Report this

By heterochromatic, March 11, 2012 at 8:44 pm Link to this comment

gerard——- I’m ALWAYS for more education rather than less…... and there’s
plenty to learn….even about those people that get pushed around…....most are
good folks and some need a push.

Report this

By gerard, March 11, 2012 at 8:06 pm Link to this comment

Hetero, I’ll take helping over hindering any day. And a little education in nationalism and its complaints goes a long way to helping nationalists recognize their biases and conceits. Watch for that smirk, the tendency to push people around, the finger-shaking warning: “Make no mistake about it; nothing is off the table!” and you can smell it a mile away.

Report this

By heterochromatic, March 11, 2012 at 7:14 pm Link to this comment

gerard——-open access to the internet HELPS to dispel ignorance, it can’t cure it
and too few people avail themselves of the info….and HUGE amounts of the stuff
on the internet is incorrect and actually spreading ignorance…...

Report this

By gerard, March 11, 2012 at 6:31 pm Link to this comment

On the subject of believing myths and non-truths abd propaganda about foreign places:  The way the U.S. government is going after those who are making its policies known worldwide—policies the government considers should be secret—you’d think they have something to hide. Maybe they do.
  The entire thrust of the Internet is to disseminate all knowledge far more wideliy that ever before in human history.  That’s its greatest value.
  All knowledge is “secret” until it is known and as long as it is secret it cannot be used by those who need to know it.
  In this article the writer pointed out 10 “myths” about Iran which are preventing accurate information about Iran, and are circulating not because they are true “information” but because their content is prejudicial and causes misunderstanding.
  If you stop to think about it, open access to the internet would tend to call misinformation, lies, self-iinterested plots and propaganda into question. Such myths would be evident to all who searched for more truth and accuracy.
  Governments protesting, trying to limit access, or punishing those who circulate internet information are stuck in the modes of the past. The better part of wisdom would be to adapt to modern information technologies which are pushing in the direction of more compete international understanding—not to try to stop the clock and preserve national mythologies. Fortunately, the advance is inevitable.
The only problem is how painful and destructive the resistance may be.

Report this

By heterochromatic, March 11, 2012 at 6:26 pm Link to this comment

balk——- there are 4 sentences here…....

“the correct thing to do is for ICT to issue warrant for arrest of any leader who
is being accused of committing crime
against own or ‘alien’ people.
the accusation self, should come from human rights watch [tho i wonder about
it also], but not ever from the greatest
criminal minds, which is what the members of world 1% are.
it goes without saying that the world’s 1% would never permit that step.
however, if russia and china draw the red line s’mwhen-s’mwhere, the world’s
onepercenters would, i firmly expect, back

and they connect pretty poorly….....  grammar aside, the logic of them is
elusive (at best) ...

are you suggesting that the Russia and China are free from people who are
extraordinarily rich and are not “1%-ers” and that Russia/China are, in some
impossible way, morally better than the rest of the world and not connected to
the world economic system?

I can’t tell if I’m not really reading well what you mean to say…. or if I am
understanding you and you meant that silly stuff.

Report this

By Rehmat, March 11, 2012 at 6:12 pm Link to this comment

“I don’t know how many times I’ve said to my friends – and they can verify it. I wish we had a president as decent as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the current and outspoken president of Iran. I mean, just compare the two men as human beings. Mr. Ahmadinejad seems like a decent guy from the neighborhood, trying to tell the truth while being trampled by the demonic Jewish spin machine. And here is George W. Bush (interchangeable with Barack Obama, as have been all American presidents since U.S. Grant), revealing himself to the world as a lying, pathological killer. Hey, which one would you choose?” wrote American writer John Kaminsky in ‘The beautiful Iranians’.

Report this

By balkas, March 11, 2012 at 5:56 pm Link to this comment

most people most of the time understand what i write.
or at least get the point or the message.
but people who get upset about what we put down on paper go on personal attacks or complain about this or
but, pray, tell me, which sentence[s] in the 3 post on this thread you did not understand?
at least some of my sentences are short. perhaps some may be longer than they shld be, but most are about
par per course.
i think you area natural complainer—-woe ist mir type. ashkenazim love complaining and you are, i think,
one of those ashkenazic [european] ‘jews’ caught up in supremacistic cobweb.
live a little and let others live as well! in any case, you can always stop reading our thoughts, facts,
conclusions, etc.
i often do not read what you say. there are others on this site whose posts i seldom read. and for many
reasons! thanks

Report this

By heterochromatic, March 11, 2012 at 4:15 pm Link to this comment

no, balkas, I did not know all along what you were
going on about…...and would venture to say that few
people here actually do….

I appreciate the difficulty in describing complex ideas
in a language alien to you, and can commend you for the
attempt, but can say that you get tangled up when your
sentences get too complex.

permit me to suggest that shorter sentences stacked
together might be better.

Report this

By balkas, March 11, 2012 at 3:59 pm Link to this comment

hetero, your right about the word “domestic”. according to my dictionary, it does mean
“house servant”.
but 80% of americans are servants, anyway. true, i shld have used another word for
people that 1% in US now fears more than ever.[perhaps not enough right now, but that
is another phenomenon to study]
i shld have said that 1% fears own people.
but i think you knew i meant that all along, even tho i used the wrong label. am i right?
[btw, the word “domestic” may derive from slavic/latin word “dom”; which means home.
and because of that, i erroneously ascribed to the word “domestic” wrong meaning.

Report this

By heterochromatic, March 11, 2012 at 3:08 pm Link to this comment

balkas——do you know of many people who are afraid os

what are you trying to say? 
employing domestics is an age-old tradition in China
that is rapidly returning in the post-Mao era.

Report this

By balkas, March 11, 2012 at 3:00 pm Link to this comment

we need to deal with just two myths: the MYTH that US has the right to attack any country.
and the MYTH that with ‘propper reasons’ US has the right to attack other countries.
alas, JR chose to ignore the two myths or is herself not aware of them.
bombing/invading a country; removing its govt, etc., on basis of any rationalization or ‘prediction’ of what might happen
if US/world 1% does not invade, bomb, impose sanctions/blockades, etc., cannot be right action to take.

the correct thing to do is for ICT to issue warrant for arrest of any leader who is being accused of committing crime
against own or ‘alien’ people.
the accusation self, should come from human rights watch [tho i wonder about it also], but not ever from the greatest
criminal minds, which is what the members of world 1% are.
it goes without saying that the world’s 1% would never permit that step.
however, if russia and china draw the red line s’mwhen-s’mwhere, the world’s onepercenters would, i firmly expect, back
for one thing they like money too much and they also fear domestics.
hope china and russia se it this way!!!!

Report this

By heterochromatic, March 11, 2012 at 2:01 pm Link to this comment

moonie, you raver, twasn’t the gringos what sodomized
and shot him…..was it now?

your ugly racism is as boundless as it is lame.

Report this
moonraven's avatar

By moonraven, March 11, 2012 at 12:26 pm Link to this comment

Who gives a shit whether Gadafi was a nice guy or not?

Does his not being a nice guy give some other not-nice guy the right to sodomize him and shoot him?

You gringos are way our there with the savages when it comes to looking at human rights.

It’s simply shameful.

Report this
moonraven's avatar

By moonraven, March 11, 2012 at 12:16 pm Link to this comment

Persopn, pimps for patriotism:  manage to get….

Report this
moonraven's avatar

By moonraven, March 11, 2012 at 12:11 pm Link to this comment

Very poorly written piece. 

The writer makes it look as if his bold-face refutations are in fact the myths at issue.

How does this slipshod and slingshot journalism managed to get published anyway?

Report this

By Ali Reza, March 11, 2012 at 9:09 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

what ever you try to do the days of the Iranian regime is counted. and the PMOI will take over.
And it’s just the way it is.

Report this
blogdog's avatar

By blogdog, March 11, 2012 at 12:17 am Link to this comment

RE: ...enemy of my enemy…

across the ME Islamist militants are destabilizing regimes - al qaeda, which
grew out of the Afghan Mujahideen, we were told turned on their western
supporters in a classic case of ‘blowback’ - by now it’s perfectly clear, that
never happened - the CIA has been running them all the time - sure, in the
trenches they may hate us, but their chief operatives are double agents -
mercenaries directing their charges to make so-called ‘jihad’ where their
handlers direct them to do so - in the MSM al qaeda is the perfect bogyman -
on the ground they fight where the globalists deploy them - e.g.

Syria: Clinton Admits US On Same Side As Al Qaeda To Destabilise Assad
by Michel Chossudovsky and Finian Cunningham


US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has acknowledged that Al Qaeda and
other organizations on the US “terror list” are supporting the Syrian opposition.

Clinton said: “We have a very dangerous set of actors in the region, al-Qaida
[sic], Hamas, and those who are on our terrorist list, to be sure, supporting –
claiming to support the opposition [in Syria].” [1] (Click here to watch video)

Yet at the same time, in the above BBC interview the US Secretary of State
repeats the threadbare Western claim that the situation in Syria is one of a
defenceless population coming under “relentless attack” from Syrian
government forces.

There is ample evidence that teams of snipers who have been killing civilians
over the past year in Syria belong to the terrorist formations to which Clinton is
referring to.


Report this

By heterochromatic, March 10, 2012 at 10:26 pm Link to this comment

the enemy of our enemy is not quite our true-blue ally…. but I’ll not zealously
gainsay anyone declaiming the outrageous stupidity of the Bush presidency.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, March 10, 2012 at 9:58 pm Link to this comment

Between 9/11/2001 and GW Bush’s State of the Union speech in January of 2002, the Iranian government was EAGER to help the USA in its drive to wipe out Al Qaeda and its supporting government, the Taliban.  The Iranian leadership saw both Al Qaeda and the Taliban as their worst enemies and, in that part of the world, the “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

But in his SOTU address, that sh*thead Bush declared an “Axis of Evil” of North Korea, Iraq and…..Iran—our true-blue ally in the War on Al Qaeda and the Taliban!  That may be one of the STUPIDEST actions ever taken in American foreign relations.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, March 10, 2012 at 6:51 pm Link to this comment

Of course the population had no one else to compare him to. An Gaddafi would not allow any real democratic voting even though he had been so generous to the people. I wonder why?

Report this

By heterochromatic, March 10, 2012 at 5:30 pm Link to this comment

Glad the article was careful in declaring that it’s
not the Iranian people responsible for the 30 years
of demonization and hatred for the US and Israel and
western culture and that the responsibility for all
the hatred and lies rest with the regime.

it’s really a fucking dreadful gov’t.

congrats to Juan Cole for reminding everyone that
Khamenei says that nuclear weapons are not on the
agenda for Iran. if we can’t trust in the integrity
and veracity of that guy, we can’t trust hardly any
dictatorial clergymen.

Report this
blogdog's avatar

By blogdog, March 10, 2012 at 5:08 pm Link to this comment

RE: Of course some liked him [Gaddafi] but most did not.


In Libya, most liked him. The Libyan Arab Socialist Jamahirya served LIbyans
very well - the list below, many have seen - as well, many have dismissed it as
benefits only available to those selected through an unjust system of nepotism,
as though nepotism was unique to Libya - to what degree this is true is
arguable. But over 1 million Libyan’s turned out July 1, 2011 to show support for
The Libyan Arab Socialist Jamahirya and their leader - not arguable.

Gaddafi’s regime did indeed hunt down and murder enemies of the state; again
often presented as something ‘unique’ - curious assertion.

Myths prevail: e.g. Lockerbie:

At any rate, when NATO chooses to take out a regime as brutally as it did the
Libyan Arab Socialist Jamahirya, and intends to do so again, as we now see
planned for the Syrian regime and very likely that of Iran, there is no doubt that
the agenda is NOT the promotion of democratic reform nor humanitarianism.

There is no justification for perishing 50K-plus civilians while turning their
nation into a living hell, just to take out a single despot and his close family.

NATO are the world’s premiere war criminals!

          THE LIBYAN ARAB SOCIALIST JAMAHIRA - as of March 2011
  1.  No electricity bill; electricity free for all its citizens.
  2.  No interest on loans, banks state-owned and loans given to all its
citizens at zero percent interest by law.
  3.  Having a home considered a human right.
  4.  All newlyweds receive U.S.$50,000 by the government to buy their first
apartment so to help start up the family.
  5.  Education and medical treatment free.
  6.  Want to take up farming career? land, house, equipment, seed and
livestock to kickstart the farm, all for free.
  7.  Cannot find education or medical facilities, the government funds both
to be sought abroad, not only paid for, but with a U.S.$2,300/month for
accommodation and car allowance.
  8.  Want a car, government subsidizes 50 percent of the price.
  9.  Price of petrol:  $0.14 per liter.
  10.  No external debt and a nation with reserves amounting to $ billions.
  11.  Unable to get employment after graduation, state pays the average
salary of the profession, as if employed, until employment is found.
  12.  Portion of all nationally owned natural resouce lease revens credited
directly to the bank accounts of all citizens.
  13.  A mother who gives birth to a child receive U.S.$5,000.
  14.  40 loaves of bread costs $0.15.
  15.  25 percent of all citizens get a university degree.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, March 10, 2012 at 4:10 pm Link to this comment

Gadaffi wasn’t a nice guy an didn’t like Democracy unless he controlled it like any long term dictator. Of course some liked him but most did not.

The worse thing that could happen not only for Iran but for the USA, Israel an the rest of the world would be a war. Just as with Iraq, the reasons will be mostly lies mixed with truth an cause way more problems than it will ever fix.

Report this

By balkas, March 10, 2012 at 2:03 pm Link to this comment

i do not think that world’s 1% will ever abandon its desire to install
iranian 1% to power in iran.
but being afraid at this time to invade iran, it’ll choose syria for
destruction first and then bring there to power syrian 1% [an
admixture of islamic extremists and plutocrats]
iran would thus lose an important ally. that would render iran more
vulnerable from inside and outside the country.
after fall of syria, the world 1% would intensify destabilization
process and keep it up till it bites the dust like libya.
all this is contingent on whether china or russia or china/russia
declare war on world 1% if it attempts to militarily destroy syria
and/or iran.
but syria is gone unless the two super powers say nyet to US and its
numerous allies.
so, who’s gonna blink first? thanks

Report this

By felicity, March 10, 2012 at 1:28 pm Link to this comment

The American right-wing conservatives favor small
government, small taxes, an unregulated (uncontrolled)
free-market, AND unwavering support of Israel - no
matter what.  Israel is unwavering in its condemnation
of Iran, therefore conservative (Republican) Americans
are unwavering in their condemnation of Iran.

Seems to me myths vs. truths are just side issues.

Report this
blogdog's avatar

By blogdog, March 10, 2012 at 11:44 am Link to this comment

about time TD cited a fair and balanced article on Iran - now if TD would only do the same vis-à-vis Syria

as for Libya, it’s bloody well too late… TD, along with Democracy Now, curiously presented only the
demonization of Gaddafi and shills for NATO, whilst quashing any and all balanced reporting…

so, just as predicted by virtually all voices of dissent - voices virtually censored out of the Left/Lib/Prog
media - from Africa’s highest standard of living, just one year ago. here’s what the Libyan people are left

‘Gaddafi 2.0?’ Split & struggle flares up Libya again!

Report this
Right Top, Site wide - Care2
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide

Like Truthdig on Facebook