Netanyahu says Iranian missiles could eventually reach U.S.

[pbel]

So you have nothing then. Just empty accusations that fit into your nice little anti semetic mind. As usual.

Read the Link...

Hold on let me put my tin foil hat on. okay here we go, top of the page:

Darwin Bond-Graham on the planned destruction of America’s greatest industrial city;
Killing Detroit: AMERICAN AMAZON: Susanna Hecht on the surreal history of American attempts to turn the Amazon into a colony for slavers and speculators; FOCUSING HIROSHIMA: Jeffrey St. Clair interviews artist elin o’Hara slavick on her startling new project photographing radioactive objects from the Hiroshima bombing;

After recovering from that, I went ahead and skimmed the article. Yup as I thought! no mention of AIPAC influence in Europe or Japan or Australia.

So for the third time....NOTHING. Three strikes and you're out?

American military power affects European policies all over the world and AIPAC money affects American policies in the ME...Deny that and you are a liar or a Fool...you struck out.

 

[Roudy]

Facts are stubborn things. Netanyahu is reminding Americans of the facts. Now, why do you feel so obligated to protect Iran's regime so much? The same regime you claim to not adore. (Ya right, so believable).

Netanyahu is hated in the USA, ever since he said 9-11 was good for Israel.

He has no business trying to "remind" us of anything.

Another lie, and he calls others a troll.

Netanyahu is not hated. In fact he is celebrated in the US as one of the great world leaders and invited to speak to Congress, Christian organizations, and many media outlets.

How about Iran's Islamic leaders I bet you're gonna say their loved here in the US? Ha ha ha.

 

[Roudy]

Read the Link...

Hold on let me put my tin foil hat on. okay here we go, top of the page:

Darwin Bond-Graham on the planned destruction of America’s greatest industrial city;
Killing Detroit: AMERICAN AMAZON: Susanna Hecht on the surreal history of American attempts to turn the Amazon into a colony for slavers and speculators; FOCUSING HIROSHIMA: Jeffrey St. Clair interviews artist elin o’Hara slavick on her startling new project photographing radioactive objects from the Hiroshima bombing;

After recovering from that, I went ahead and skimmed the article. Yup as I thought! no mention of AIPAC influence in Europe or Japan or Australia.

So for the third time....NOTHING. Three strikes and you're out?

American military power affects European policies all over the world and AIPAC money affects American policies in the ME...Deny that and you are a liar or a Fool...you struck out.

Guilt by accusation? Surely you have more than just that. You just struck out buddy. Next time you parrot the Neo Nazi talking points "AIPAC! AIPAC!" see if it can even apply.

Fact is the Europeans, and especially the Arab Sunnis who are much closer in distance to Iran than the US, are far more worried about Iran's nuclear ambitions and it's behavior, than even Israel. Which is why THE EUROPEANS and not the Americans are leading the push for sanctions.

How's that for a dose of reality?

 

[pbel]

Hold on let me put my tin foil hat on. okay here we go, top of the page:

Darwin Bond-Graham on the planned destruction of America’s greatest industrial city;
Killing Detroit: AMERICAN AMAZON: Susanna Hecht on the surreal history of American attempts to turn the Amazon into a colony for slavers and speculators; FOCUSING HIROSHIMA: Jeffrey St. Clair interviews artist elin o’Hara slavick on her startling new project photographing radioactive objects from the Hiroshima bombing;

After recovering from that, I went ahead and skimmed the article. Yup as I thought! no mention of AIPAC influence in Europe or Japan or Australia.

So for the third time....NOTHING. Three strikes and you're out?

American military power affects European policies all over the world and AIPAC money affects American policies in the ME...Deny that and you are a liar or a Fool...you struck out.

Guilt by accusation? Surely you have more than just that. You just struck out buddy. Next time you parrot the Neo Nazi talking points "AIPAC! AIPAC!" see if it can even apply.

Fact is the Europeans, and especially the Arab Sunnis who are much closer in distance to Iran than the US, are far more worried about Iran's nuclear ambitions and it's behavior, than even Israel. Which is why THE EUROPEANS and not the Americans are leading the push for sanctions.

How's that for a dose of reality?

U.S. sanctions against Iran


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to: navigation, search





Get the facts, Howdy doody...

U.S. sanctions against Iran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The US imposed sanction of 1995 bans aviation companies from selling aircraft and repair parts to Iranian airlines.
This article outlines economic, trade, scientific and military sanctions against Iran, which have been imposed by the U.S. government, or under U.S. pressure by the international community through the United Nations Security Council. Currently the sanctions include an embargo on dealings with Iran by the United States, and a ban on selling aircraft and repair parts to Iranian aviation companies.



Contents
[hide] 1 Legal framework
2 Rafsanjani and Khatami governments
3 Ahmadinejad government 3.1 Banking

4 Effects and criticism
5 Exceptions
6 See also
7 References
8 External links

Legal framework[edit]

In 1979, after the U.S. permitted the exiled Shah of Iran to enter the United States for medical treatment, and after rumors of another U.S. backed coup and re-installation of the Shah, a group of radical students took action in Tehran by seizing the American Embassy and taking hostage the people inside.[1] The United States responded and President Carter issued Executive Order 12170 in November 1979 freezing about $12 billion in Iranian assets, including bank deposits, gold and other properties. Some assets — Iranian officials say $10 billion, U.S. officials say much less — still remain frozen pending resolution of legal claims arising from the revolution.

After the invasion of Iran by Iraq, the United States increased sanctions against Iran. In 1984, sanctions were approved that prohibit weapons sales and all U.S. assistance to Iran. The United States also opposed all loans to Iran from international financial institutions. In October 1987, President Reagan issued Executive Order 12613 prohibiting the importation and exportation of any goods or services from Iran.

The Iran Sanctions Act (ISA) that is the basis of the current sanctions against Iran is a revised version of the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA) that was signed on 5 August 1996 (H.R. 3107, P.L. 104-172).[2] The act was renamed in 2006 when the sanctions against Libya were terminated.[2]

Despite 131 of its 435 members writing to President Barack Obama on July 19 , 2013 urging that he “reinvigorate” nuclear talks with Iran, the House of Representatives,voted by 400 to 20 on July 31 , 2013 to toughen sanctions.[3]

 

[Roudy]

American military power affects European policies all over the world and AIPAC money affects American policies in the ME...Deny that and you are a liar or a Fool...you struck out.

Guilt by accusation? Surely you have more than just that. You just struck out buddy. Next time you parrot the Neo Nazi talking points "AIPAC! AIPAC!" see if it can even apply.

Fact is the Europeans, and especially the Arab Sunnis who are much closer in distance to Iran than the US, are far more worried about Iran's nuclear ambitions and it's behavior, than even Israel. Which is why THE EUROPEANS and not the Americans are leading the push for sanctions.

How's that for a dose of reality?

U.S. sanctions against Iran


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to: navigation, search





Get the facts, Howdy doody...

U.S. sanctions against Iran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The US imposed sanction of 1995 bans aviation companies from selling aircraft and repair parts to Iranian airlines.
This article outlines economic, trade, scientific and military sanctions against Iran, which have been imposed by the U.S. government, or under U.S. pressure by the international community through the United Nations Security Council. Currently the sanctions include an embargo on dealings with Iran by the United States, and a ban on selling aircraft and repair parts to Iranian aviation companies.



Contents
[hide] 1 Legal framework
2 Rafsanjani and Khatami governments
3 Ahmadinejad government 3.1 Banking

4 Effects and criticism
5 Exceptions
6 See also
7 References
8 External links

Legal framework[edit]

In 1979, after the U.S. permitted the exiled Shah of Iran to enter the United States for medical treatment, and after rumors of another U.S. backed coup and re-installation of the Shah, a group of radical students took action in Tehran by seizing the American Embassy and taking hostage the people inside.[1] The United States responded and President Carter issued Executive Order 12170 in November 1979 freezing about $12 billion in Iranian assets, including bank deposits, gold and other properties. Some assets — Iranian officials say $10 billion, U.S. officials say much less — still remain frozen pending resolution of legal claims arising from the revolution.

After the invasion of Iran by Iraq, the United States increased sanctions against Iran. In 1984, sanctions were approved that prohibit weapons sales and all U.S. assistance to Iran. The United States also opposed all loans to Iran from international financial institutions. In October 1987, President Reagan issued Executive Order 12613 prohibiting the importation and exportation of any goods or services from Iran.

The Iran Sanctions Act (ISA) that is the basis of the current sanctions against Iran is a revised version of the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA) that was signed on 5 August 1996 (H.R. 3107, P.L. 104-172).[2] The act was renamed in 2006 when the sanctions against Libya were terminated.[2]

Despite 131 of its 435 members writing to President Barack Obama on July 19 , 2013 urging that he “reinvigorate” nuclear talks with Iran, the House of Representatives,voted by 400 to 20 on July 31 , 2013 to toughen sanctions.[3]

Here are the facts Gomer Mussolini.

Despite what Iranian officials claim, the United States is not behind Europe's new stance. In fact, over the past two decades, the European Union has been surprisingly resistant to U.S. pressure. It regularly rejected the demands of the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations to embrace Washington's strategy of neutering the Islamic Republic through economic and political isolation.

By signing on to wide-ranging sanctions against Iran in late January, the European Union made a bet that harsh economic penalties would finally push Iran to comply with its international obligations, especially that it end its efforts to enrich uranium to weapons-grade level and accept a verifiable inspection regime under the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). This is a long way from the "critical dialogue" framework the European Union favored throughout the 1990s, when it aimed to normalize ties with Tehran as a way of fostering domestic reform and empowering moderates. It is also a departure from the so-called EU-3 diplomacy of the last decade, whereby France, Germany, and the United Kingdom looked to negotiate a compromise with Iran on its nuclear program on behalf of the wider international community. In the past, even when Brussels threw its full weight behind UN sanctions -- for example, in December 2006 -- European officials were quick to follow up with statements highlighting their preference for diplomacy and engagement. (By January 2007 officials were calling for a "negotiated long-term solution.") This time, however, Europe seems more decisive. As European Council President Herman Van Rompuy explained earlier this month, "More pressure on Iran, more sanctions on Iran" is now the order of the day.

**** Like I said, facts are stubborn things.

Check mate.

 

[pbel]

Guilt by accusation? Surely you have more than just that. You just struck out buddy. Next time you parrot the Neo Nazi talking points "AIPAC! AIPAC!" see if it can even apply.

Fact is the Europeans, and especially the Arab Sunnis who are much closer in distance to Iran than the US, are far more worried about Iran's nuclear ambitions and it's behavior, than even Israel. Which is why THE EUROPEANS and not the Americans are leading the push for sanctions.

How's that for a dose of reality?

U.S. sanctions against Iran


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to: navigation, search





Get the facts, Howdy doody...

U.S. sanctions against Iran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The US imposed sanction of 1995 bans aviation companies from selling aircraft and repair parts to Iranian airlines.
This article outlines economic, trade, scientific and military sanctions against Iran, which have been imposed by the U.S. government, or under U.S. pressure by the international community through the United Nations Security Council. Currently the sanctions include an embargo on dealings with Iran by the United States, and a ban on selling aircraft and repair parts to Iranian aviation companies.



Contents
[hide] 1 Legal framework
2 Rafsanjani and Khatami governments
3 Ahmadinejad government 3.1 Banking

4 Effects and criticism
5 Exceptions
6 See also
7 References
8 External links

Legal framework[edit]

In 1979, after the U.S. permitted the exiled Shah of Iran to enter the United States for medical treatment, and after rumors of another U.S. backed coup and re-installation of the Shah, a group of radical students took action in Tehran by seizing the American Embassy and taking hostage the people inside.[1] The United States responded and President Carter issued Executive Order 12170 in November 1979 freezing about $12 billion in Iranian assets, including bank deposits, gold and other properties. Some assets — Iranian officials say $10 billion, U.S. officials say much less — still remain frozen pending resolution of legal claims arising from the revolution.

After the invasion of Iran by Iraq, the United States increased sanctions against Iran. In 1984, sanctions were approved that prohibit weapons sales and all U.S. assistance to Iran. The United States also opposed all loans to Iran from international financial institutions. In October 1987, President Reagan issued Executive Order 12613 prohibiting the importation and exportation of any goods or services from Iran.

The Iran Sanctions Act (ISA) that is the basis of the current sanctions against Iran is a revised version of the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA) that was signed on 5 August 1996 (H.R. 3107, P.L. 104-172).[2] The act was renamed in 2006 when the sanctions against Libya were terminated.[2]

Despite 131 of its 435 members writing to President Barack Obama on July 19 , 2013 urging that he “reinvigorate” nuclear talks with Iran, the House of Representatives,voted by 400 to 20 on July 31 , 2013 to toughen sanctions.[3]

Here are the facts Gomer Mussolini.

Despite what Iranian officials claim, the United States is not behind Europe's new stance. In fact, over the past two decades, the European Union has been surprisingly resistant to U.S. pressure. It regularly rejected the demands of the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations to embrace Washington's strategy of neutering the Islamic Republic through economic and political isolation.

By signing on to wide-ranging sanctions against Iran in late January, the European Union made a bet that harsh economic penalties would finally push Iran to comply with its international obligations, especially that it end its efforts to enrich uranium to weapons-grade level and accept a verifiable inspection regime under the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). This is a long way from the "critical dialogue" framework the European Union favored throughout the 1990s, when it aimed to normalize ties with Tehran as a way of fostering domestic reform and empowering moderates. It is also a departure from the so-called EU-3 diplomacy of the last decade, whereby France, Germany, and the United Kingdom looked to negotiate a compromise with Iran on its nuclear program on behalf of the wider international community. In the past, even when Brussels threw its full weight behind UN sanctions -- for example, in December 2006 -- European officials were quick to follow up with statements highlighting their preference for diplomacy and engagement. (By January 2007 officials were calling for a "negotiated long-term solution.") This time, however, Europe seems more decisive. As European Council President Herman Van Rompuy explained earlier this month, "More pressure on Iran, more sanctions on Iran" is now the order of the day.

**** Like I said, facts are stubborn things.

Check mate.

That's your proof a commentary from a Zionist"? You are a pathetic liar.

 

[pbel]

U.S. sanctions against Iran


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to: navigation, search





Get the facts, Howdy doody...

U.S. sanctions against Iran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The US imposed sanction of 1995 bans aviation companies from selling aircraft and repair parts to Iranian airlines.
This article outlines economic, trade, scientific and military sanctions against Iran, which have been imposed by the U.S. government, or under U.S. pressure by the international community through the United Nations Security Council. Currently the sanctions include an embargo on dealings with Iran by the United States, and a ban on selling aircraft and repair parts to Iranian aviation companies.



Contents
[hide] 1 Legal framework
2 Rafsanjani and Khatami governments
3 Ahmadinejad government 3.1 Banking

4 Effects and criticism
5 Exceptions
6 See also
7 References
8 External links

Legal framework[edit]

In 1979, after the U.S. permitted the exiled Shah of Iran to enter the United States for medical treatment, and after rumors of another U.S. backed coup and re-installation of the Shah, a group of radical students took action in Tehran by seizing the American Embassy and taking hostage the people inside.[1] The United States responded and President Carter issued Executive Order 12170 in November 1979 freezing about $12 billion in Iranian assets, including bank deposits, gold and other properties. Some assets — Iranian officials say $10 billion, U.S. officials say much less — still remain frozen pending resolution of legal claims arising from the revolution.

After the invasion of Iran by Iraq, the United States increased sanctions against Iran. In 1984, sanctions were approved that prohibit weapons sales and all U.S. assistance to Iran. The United States also opposed all loans to Iran from international financial institutions. In October 1987, President Reagan issued Executive Order 12613 prohibiting the importation and exportation of any goods or services from Iran.

The Iran Sanctions Act (ISA) that is the basis of the current sanctions against Iran is a revised version of the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA) that was signed on 5 August 1996 (H.R. 3107, P.L. 104-172).[2] The act was renamed in 2006 when the sanctions against Libya were terminated.[2]

Despite 131 of its 435 members writing to President Barack Obama on July 19 , 2013 urging that he “reinvigorate” nuclear talks with Iran, the House of Representatives,voted by 400 to 20 on July 31 , 2013 to toughen sanctions.[3]

Here are the facts Gomer Mussolini.

Despite what Iranian officials claim, the United States is not behind Europe's new stance. In fact, over the past two decades, the European Union has been surprisingly resistant to U.S. pressure. It regularly rejected the demands of the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations to embrace Washington's strategy of neutering the Islamic Republic through economic and political isolation.

By signing on to wide-ranging sanctions against Iran in late January, the European Union made a bet that harsh economic penalties would finally push Iran to comply with its international obligations, especially that it end its efforts to enrich uranium to weapons-grade level and accept a verifiable inspection regime under the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). This is a long way from the "critical dialogue" framework the European Union favored throughout the 1990s, when it aimed to normalize ties with Tehran as a way of fostering domestic reform and empowering moderates. It is also a departure from the so-called EU-3 diplomacy of the last decade, whereby France, Germany, and the United Kingdom looked to negotiate a compromise with Iran on its nuclear program on behalf of the wider international community. In the past, even when Brussels threw its full weight behind UN sanctions -- for example, in December 2006 -- European officials were quick to follow up with statements highlighting their preference for diplomacy and engagement. (By January 2007 officials were calling for a "negotiated long-term solution.") This time, however, Europe seems more decisive. As European Council President Herman Van Rompuy explained earlier this month, "More pressure on Iran, more sanctions on Iran" is now the order of the day.

**** Like I said, facts are stubborn things.

Check mate.

That's your proof a commentary from a Zionist"? You are a pathetic liar.

Foreign Relations Council: Some of its membership...

Penny Abeywardena


John P. Abizaid


Mona Aboelnaga Kanaan


Tara B. Abrahams


Max Abrahms


Michael J. Abramowitz


Morton I. Abramowitz


Elliott Abrams


Stacey Y. Abrams


William M. Abrams

 

[Roudy]

U.S. sanctions against Iran


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to: navigation, search





Get the facts, Howdy doody...

U.S. sanctions against Iran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The US imposed sanction of 1995 bans aviation companies from selling aircraft and repair parts to Iranian airlines.
This article outlines economic, trade, scientific and military sanctions against Iran, which have been imposed by the U.S. government, or under U.S. pressure by the international community through the United Nations Security Council. Currently the sanctions include an embargo on dealings with Iran by the United States, and a ban on selling aircraft and repair parts to Iranian aviation companies.



Contents
[hide] 1 Legal framework
2 Rafsanjani and Khatami governments
3 Ahmadinejad government 3.1 Banking

4 Effects and criticism
5 Exceptions
6 See also
7 References
8 External links

Legal framework[edit]

In 1979, after the U.S. permitted the exiled Shah of Iran to enter the United States for medical treatment, and after rumors of another U.S. backed coup and re-installation of the Shah, a group of radical students took action in Tehran by seizing the American Embassy and taking hostage the people inside.[1] The United States responded and President Carter issued Executive Order 12170 in November 1979 freezing about $12 billion in Iranian assets, including bank deposits, gold and other properties. Some assets — Iranian officials say $10 billion, U.S. officials say much less — still remain frozen pending resolution of legal claims arising from the revolution.

After the invasion of Iran by Iraq, the United States increased sanctions against Iran. In 1984, sanctions were approved that prohibit weapons sales and all U.S. assistance to Iran. The United States also opposed all loans to Iran from international financial institutions. In October 1987, President Reagan issued Executive Order 12613 prohibiting the importation and exportation of any goods or services from Iran.

The Iran Sanctions Act (ISA) that is the basis of the current sanctions against Iran is a revised version of the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA) that was signed on 5 August 1996 (H.R. 3107, P.L. 104-172).[2] The act was renamed in 2006 when the sanctions against Libya were terminated.[2]

Despite 131 of its 435 members writing to President Barack Obama on July 19 , 2013 urging that he “reinvigorate” nuclear talks with Iran, the House of Representatives,voted by 400 to 20 on July 31 , 2013 to toughen sanctions.[3]

Here are the facts Gomer Mussolini.

Despite what Iranian officials claim, the United States is not behind Europe's new stance. In fact, over the past two decades, the European Union has been surprisingly resistant to U.S. pressure. It regularly rejected the demands of the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations to embrace Washington's strategy of neutering the Islamic Republic through economic and political isolation.

By signing on to wide-ranging sanctions against Iran in late January, the European Union made a bet that harsh economic penalties would finally push Iran to comply with its international obligations, especially that it end its efforts to enrich uranium to weapons-grade level and accept a verifiable inspection regime under the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). This is a long way from the "critical dialogue" framework the European Union favored throughout the 1990s, when it aimed to normalize ties with Tehran as a way of fostering domestic reform and empowering moderates. It is also a departure from the so-called EU-3 diplomacy of the last decade, whereby France, Germany, and the United Kingdom looked to negotiate a compromise with Iran on its nuclear program on behalf of the wider international community. In the past, even when Brussels threw its full weight behind UN sanctions -- for example, in December 2006 -- European officials were quick to follow up with statements highlighting their preference for diplomacy and engagement. (By January 2007 officials were calling for a "negotiated long-term solution.") This time, however, Europe seems more decisive. As European Council President Herman Van Rompuy explained earlier this month, "More pressure on Iran, more sanctions on Iran" is now the order of the day.

**** Like I said, facts are stubborn things.

Check mate.

That's your proof a commentary from a Zionist"? You are a pathetic liar.

Zionist? That's what I call a cop out.

About us:

Since its founding in 1922, Foreign Affairs has been the leading forum for serious discussion of American foreign policy and global affairs. It is now a multiplatform media organization with a print magazine, a website, a mobile site, various apps and social media feeds, an event business, and more. Foreign Affairs is published by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a non-profit and nonpartisan membership organization dedicated to improving the understanding of U.S. foreign policy and international affairs through the free exchange of ideas. (Learn more about CFR in this short video.) The magazine’s first issue led with a statement setting out an editorial vision that has remained constant ever since:

“The articles in Foreign Affairs will deal with questions of international interest today. They will cover a broad range of subjects, not only political but historical and economic, and they will be accompanied, when it is desirable, by maps and diagrams. Technical articles will be left to more special magazines. There will be numerous foreign contributors, but the fact that the interest and profit of the American reader are a first consideration will not be forgotten.”

“In pursuance of its ideals Foreign Affairs will not devote itself to the support of any one cause, however worthy. Like the Council on Foreign Relations from which it has sprung it will tolerate wide differences of opinion. Its articles will not represent any consensus of beliefs. What is demanded of them is that they shall be competent and well informed, representing honest opinions seriously held and convincingly expressed. We do not expect that readers of the review will sympathize with all the sentiments they find there, for some of our writers will flatly disagree with others; but we hold that while keeping clear of mere vagaries Foreign Affairs can do more to guide American public opinion by a broad hospitality to divergent ideas than it can by identifying itself with one school. It does not accept responsibility for the views expressed in any article, signed or unsigned, which appears in its pages. What it does accept is the responsibility for giving them a chance to appear there.”

****

How many times do you want to be checkmated? I am truly enjoying this.

"Facts are stubborn things".
Bibi Netanyahu

 

[Roudy]

Here are the facts Gomer Mussolini.

Despite what Iranian officials claim, the United States is not behind Europe's new stance. In fact, over the past two decades, the European Union has been surprisingly resistant to U.S. pressure. It regularly rejected the demands of the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations to embrace Washington's strategy of neutering the Islamic Republic through economic and political isolation.

By signing on to wide-ranging sanctions against Iran in late January, the European Union made a bet that harsh economic penalties would finally push Iran to comply with its international obligations, especially that it end its efforts to enrich uranium to weapons-grade level and accept a verifiable inspection regime under the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). This is a long way from the "critical dialogue" framework the European Union favored throughout the 1990s, when it aimed to normalize ties with Tehran as a way of fostering domestic reform and empowering moderates. It is also a departure from the so-called EU-3 diplomacy of the last decade, whereby France, Germany, and the United Kingdom looked to negotiate a compromise with Iran on its nuclear program on behalf of the wider international community. In the past, even when Brussels threw its full weight behind UN sanctions -- for example, in December 2006 -- European officials were quick to follow up with statements highlighting their preference for diplomacy and engagement. (By January 2007 officials were calling for a "negotiated long-term solution.") This time, however, Europe seems more decisive. As European Council President Herman Van Rompuy explained earlier this month, "More pressure on Iran, more sanctions on Iran" is now the order of the day.

**** Like I said, facts are stubborn things.

Check mate.

That's your proof a commentary from a Zionist"? You are a pathetic liar.

Foreign Relations Council: Some of its membership...

Penny Abeywardena


John P. Abizaid


Mona Aboelnaga Kanaan


Tara B. Abrahams


Max Abrahms


Michael J. Abramowitz


Morton I. Abramowitz


Elliott Abrams


Stacey Y. Abrams


William M. Abrams

Found "some Jews". OMG! Pathetic. These guys Jooos too?

Stuart Reid
Senior Editor
Stuart Reid has a bachelor's degree in Government from Dartmouth College, where he served as an editor at The Dartmouth and wrote a senior thesis on the role of individual leaders in international relations. Follow him on Twitter @stuartareid.

Justin Vogt
Senior Editor
Prior to joining Foreign Affairs, Justin Vogt was the managing editor of World Policy Journal. Earlier, he worked on the editorial staff of The New Yorker and as an associate producer on documentary films for Frontline. His writing has been published by The New Yorker, Slate, The Washington Monthly, and other outlets. He holds a master's degree in international affairs from Columbia University and a bachelor's degree in comparative literature from Brown University. Follow him on Twitter @Justin_Vogt.

Cameron Abadi
Deputy Web Editor
Before joining Foreign Affairs, Cameron Abadi was a story editor at The New Republic. Prior to that, he was an associate editor at Foreign Policy and a foreign correspondent based in Germany and Iran. His writing has been published by The New Republic, Bloomberg Businessweek, Financial Times Magazine, Der Spiegel, and others. He holds a bachelor's degree from Yale University and a master's degree form the Free University of Berlin. Follow him on Twitter at [MENTION=2388]Cameron[/MENTION]Abadi.

Benjamin Alter
Associate Editor
Ben Alter joined Foreign Affairs in August 2011. He holds a bachelor's degree in History from Yale University, where he focused on the modern Middle East. His writing has been published by The New York Times, The Atlantic, The National Interest, and other outlets. Follow him on Twitter [MENTION=40188]Benny[/MENTION]alter.

Frederick Deknatel
Staff Editor
Frederick Deknatel holds a master's degree in modern Middle Eastern studies from Oxford University and a bachelor's degree in history and Arabic from Vassar College. A former Fulbright fellow in Syria, he has written for The Nation, The National (Abu Dhabi), Newsweek/The Daily Beast, and other outlets. Follow him on Twitter [MENTION=12047]freddy[/MENTION]Deknatel.
Ann Tappert
Copy Editor
Ann Tappert has been a freelance manuscript editor for over ten years, working for a number of publishers on both academic and trade books. She holds a master's degree in political science from the University of Pennsylvania.

Lorenz Skeeter
Production Manager

Ib Ohlsson
Contributing Artist

Sarah Foster
Business Administrator
Sarah Foster holds an MS.MBA dual-degree in public and nonprofit management and information systems, a master’s in arts administration, and a bachelor’s in French language and literature from Boston University.

Book Review Panel

John Waterbury
Book Reviewer: Middle East
John Waterbury served as President of the American University of Beirut (AUB) from 1998 until 2008. Before joining AUB, he was for 20 years a Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. At Princeton, he also served as Director of the Center of International Studies and as Editor of the journal World Politics. His scholarship focused on the political economy of developing countries with a special emphasis on the Middle East. His books include A Political Economy of the Middle East (with Alan Richards), The Nile Basin: National Determinants of Collective Action, and The Hydropolitics of the Nile Valley. He recently worked as a Senior Advisor to the Executive Affairs Authority of Abu Dhabi on higher education, and is currently teaching at New York University’s campus in Abu Dhabi.

Richard N. Cooper
Book Reviewer: Economic, Social, and Environmental
Richard N. Cooper is Maurits C. Boas Professor of International Economics at Harvard University. His primary interests are International economics, including international trade and international monetary economics, international environmental and energy issues. He is author of What the Future Holds: Insights from Social Science; Prospects for the World Economy; Trade Growth in Transition Economies: Export Impediments for Central and Eastern Europe; and Boom, Crisis and Adjustment: The Macroeconomic Experiences of Developing Countries, 1970-1990.

**** your attempts at discrediting the site FAILED. I'm calling it as the final checkmate. Game, set, match!

 

[pbel]

That's your proof a commentary from a Zionist"? You are a pathetic liar.

Foreign Relations Council: Some of its membership...

Penny Abeywardena


John P. Abizaid


Mona Aboelnaga Kanaan


Tara B. Abrahams


Max Abrahms


Michael J. Abramowitz


Morton I. Abramowitz


Elliott Abrams


Stacey Y. Abrams


William M. Abrams

Found "some Jews". OMG! Pathetic. These guys Jooos too?

Stuart Reid
Senior Editor
Stuart Reid has a bachelor's degree in Government from Dartmouth College, where he served as an editor at The Dartmouth and wrote a senior thesis on the role of individual leaders in international relations. Follow him on Twitter @stuartareid.

Justin Vogt
Senior Editor
Prior to joining Foreign Affairs, Justin Vogt was the managing editor of World Policy Journal. Earlier, he worked on the editorial staff of The New Yorker and as an associate producer on documentary films for Frontline. His writing has been published by The New Yorker, Slate, The Washington Monthly, and other outlets. He holds a master's degree in international affairs from Columbia University and a bachelor's degree in comparative literature from Brown University. Follow him on Twitter @Justin_Vogt.

Cameron Abadi
Deputy Web Editor
Before joining Foreign Affairs, Cameron Abadi was a story editor at The New Republic. Prior to that, he was an associate editor at Foreign Policy and a foreign correspondent based in Germany and Iran. His writing has been published by The New Republic, Bloomberg Businessweek, Financial Times Magazine, Der Spiegel, and others. He holds a bachelor's degree from Yale University and a master's degree form the Free University of Berlin. Follow him on Twitter at [MENTION=2388]Cameron[/MENTION]Abadi.

Benjamin Alter
Associate Editor
Ben Alter joined Foreign Affairs in August 2011. He holds a bachelor's degree in History from Yale University, where he focused on the modern Middle East. His writing has been published by The New York Times, The Atlantic, The National Interest, and other outlets. Follow him on Twitter [MENTION=40188]Benny[/MENTION]alter.

Frederick Deknatel
Staff Editor
Frederick Deknatel holds a master's degree in modern Middle Eastern studies from Oxford University and a bachelor's degree in history and Arabic from Vassar College. A former Fulbright fellow in Syria, he has written for The Nation, The National (Abu Dhabi), Newsweek/The Daily Beast, and other outlets. Follow him on Twitter [MENTION=12047]freddy[/MENTION]Deknatel.
Ann Tappert
Copy Editor
Ann Tappert has been a freelance manuscript editor for over ten years, working for a number of publishers on both academic and trade books. She holds a master's degree in political science from the University of Pennsylvania.

Lorenz Skeeter
Production Manager

Ib Ohlsson
Contributing Artist

Sarah Foster
Business Administrator
Sarah Foster holds an MS.MBA dual-degree in public and nonprofit management and information systems, a master’s in arts administration, and a bachelor’s in French language and literature from Boston University.

Book Review Panel

John Waterbury
Book Reviewer: Middle East
John Waterbury served as President of the American University of Beirut (AUB) from 1998 until 2008. Before joining AUB, he was for 20 years a Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. At Princeton, he also served as Director of the Center of International Studies and as Editor of the journal World Politics. His scholarship focused on the political economy of developing countries with a special emphasis on the Middle East. His books include A Political Economy of the Middle East (with Alan Richards), The Nile Basin: National Determinants of Collective Action, and The Hydropolitics of the Nile Valley. He recently worked as a Senior Advisor to the Executive Affairs Authority of Abu Dhabi on higher education, and is currently teaching at New York University’s campus in Abu Dhabi.

Richard N. Cooper
Book Reviewer: Economic, Social, and Environmental
Richard N. Cooper is Maurits C. Boas Professor of International Economics at Harvard University. His primary interests are International economics, including international trade and international monetary economics, international environmental and energy issues. He is author of What the Future Holds: Insights from Social Science; Prospects for the World Economy; Trade Growth in Transition Economies: Export Impediments for Central and Eastern Europe; and Boom, Crisis and Adjustment: The Macroeconomic Experiences of Developing Countries, 1970-1990.

No, you found them and used them as a reference, Howdy Doody! Should I google more?

 

[BecauseIKnow]

Facts are stubborn things. Netanyahu is reminding Americans of the facts. Now, why do you feel so obligated to protect Iran's regime so much? The same regime you claim to not adore. (Ya right, so believable).

Netanyahu is hated in the USA, ever since he said 9-11 was good for Israel.

He has no business trying to "remind" us of anything.

Not only that, but he also said "America won't get in our way...it's easily moved".

Meaning Americans will keep supporting his absurd fantasies of his 'greater Israel'.

Watch this video in Hebrew, it's translated.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJOgnBmaqXw]Netanyahu: "America Won't Get In Our Way... It's Easily Moved" - YouTube[/ame]

 

[pbel]

Facts are stubborn things. Netanyahu is reminding Americans of the facts. Now, why do you feel so obligated to protect Iran's regime so much? The same regime you claim to not adore. (Ya right, so believable).

Netanyahu is hated in the USA, ever since he said 9-11 was good for Israel.

He has no business trying to "remind" us of anything.

Not only that, but he also said "America won't get in our way...it's easily moved".

Meaning Americans will keep supporting his absurd fantasies of his 'greater Israel'.

Watch this video in Hebrew, it's translated.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJOgnBmaqXw]Netanyahu: "America Won't Get In Our Way... It's Easily Moved" - YouTube[/ame]

Poiky Pig Sharon reportedly said it long ago: "We Control America."

 

[Roudy]

Netanyahu is hated in the USA, ever since he said 9-11 was good for Israel.

He has no business trying to "remind" us of anything.

Not only that, but he also said "America won't get in our way...it's easily moved".

Meaning Americans will keep supporting his absurd fantasies of his 'greater Israel'.

Watch this video in Hebrew, it's translated.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJOgnBmaqXw]Netanyahu: "America Won't Get In Our Way... It's Easily Moved" - YouTube[/ame]

Poiky Pig Sharon reportedly said it long ago: "We Control America."

No he didn't, but let's not let the facts get your way. LOL

 

[Roudy]

Netanyahu is hated in the USA, ever since he said 9-11 was good for Israel.

He has no business trying to "remind" us of anything.

Not only that, but he also said "America won't get in our way...it's easily moved".

Meaning Americans will keep supporting his absurd fantasies of his 'greater Israel'.

Watch this video in Hebrew, it's translated.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJOgnBmaqXw]Netanyahu: "America Won't Get In Our Way... It's Easily Moved" - YouTube[/ame]

Poiky Pig Sharon reportedly said it long ago: "We Control America."

Very old video. Plus, he said America can be moved in the right direction, as in CONVINCED what is right and wrong, if there is any doubt.

Absolutely nothing wrong with what he said. This is what happens when people have nothing, and they start grasping at straws.

 

[BecauseIKnow]

There's nothing wrong with what he said?

So what about the part where he threatens to deal heavy blows against the PA government in the West Bank for no reason at all other than to conquer more land?

 

[Roudy]

Foreign Relations Council: Some of its membership...

Penny Abeywardena


John P. Abizaid


Mona Aboelnaga Kanaan


Tara B. Abrahams


Max Abrahms


Michael J. Abramowitz


Morton I. Abramowitz


Elliott Abrams


Stacey Y. Abrams


William M. Abrams

Found "some Jews". OMG! Pathetic. These guys Jooos too?

Stuart Reid
Senior Editor
Stuart Reid has a bachelor's degree in Government from Dartmouth College, where he served as an editor at The Dartmouth and wrote a senior thesis on the role of individual leaders in international relations. Follow him on Twitter @stuartareid.

Justin Vogt
Senior Editor
Prior to joining Foreign Affairs, Justin Vogt was the managing editor of World Policy Journal. Earlier, he worked on the editorial staff of The New Yorker and as an associate producer on documentary films for Frontline. His writing has been published by The New Yorker, Slate, The Washington Monthly, and other outlets. He holds a master's degree in international affairs from Columbia University and a bachelor's degree in comparative literature from Brown University. Follow him on Twitter @Justin_Vogt.

Cameron Abadi
Deputy Web Editor
Before joining Foreign Affairs, Cameron Abadi was a story editor at The New Republic. Prior to that, he was an associate editor at Foreign Policy and a foreign correspondent based in Germany and Iran. His writing has been published by The New Republic, Bloomberg Businessweek, Financial Times Magazine, Der Spiegel, and others. He holds a bachelor's degree from Yale University and a master's degree form the Free University of Berlin. Follow him on Twitter at [MENTION=2388]Cameron[/MENTION]Abadi.

Benjamin Alter
Associate Editor
Ben Alter joined Foreign Affairs in August 2011. He holds a bachelor's degree in History from Yale University, where he focused on the modern Middle East. His writing has been published by The New York Times, The Atlantic, The National Interest, and other outlets. Follow him on Twitter [MENTION=40188]Benny[/MENTION]alter.

Frederick Deknatel
Staff Editor
Frederick Deknatel holds a master's degree in modern Middle Eastern studies from Oxford University and a bachelor's degree in history and Arabic from Vassar College. A former Fulbright fellow in Syria, he has written for The Nation, The National (Abu Dhabi), Newsweek/The Daily Beast, and other outlets. Follow him on Twitter [MENTION=12047]freddy[/MENTION]Deknatel.
Ann Tappert
Copy Editor
Ann Tappert has been a freelance manuscript editor for over ten years, working for a number of publishers on both academic and trade books. She holds a master's degree in political science from the University of Pennsylvania.

Lorenz Skeeter
Production Manager

Ib Ohlsson
Contributing Artist

Sarah Foster
Business Administrator
Sarah Foster holds an MS.MBA dual-degree in public and nonprofit management and information systems, a master’s in arts administration, and a bachelor’s in French language and literature from Boston University.

Book Review Panel

John Waterbury
Book Reviewer: Middle East
John Waterbury served as President of the American University of Beirut (AUB) from 1998 until 2008. Before joining AUB, he was for 20 years a Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. At Princeton, he also served as Director of the Center of International Studies and as Editor of the journal World Politics. His scholarship focused on the political economy of developing countries with a special emphasis on the Middle East. His books include A Political Economy of the Middle East (with Alan Richards), The Nile Basin: National Determinants of Collective Action, and The Hydropolitics of the Nile Valley. He recently worked as a Senior Advisor to the Executive Affairs Authority of Abu Dhabi on higher education, and is currently teaching at New York University’s campus in Abu Dhabi.

Richard N. Cooper
Book Reviewer: Economic, Social, and Environmental
Richard N. Cooper is Maurits C. Boas Professor of International Economics at Harvard University. His primary interests are International economics, including international trade and international monetary economics, international environmental and energy issues. He is author of What the Future Holds: Insights from Social Science; Prospects for the World Economy; Trade Growth in Transition Economies: Export Impediments for Central and Eastern Europe; and Boom, Crisis and Adjustment: The Macroeconomic Experiences of Developing Countries, 1970-1990.

No, you found them and used them as a reference, Howdy Doody! Should I google more?

Google what. Just click on the "about us" of the site and it tells you who they are. You skimmed the site and found a few Jewish sounding names and then immediately associated being Jewish to lying? Sure you're not a Jew hater. Oh look I found "some" Jewish names. Funny stuff!

And lie about about what, that Europeans are leading the charge pushing for sanctions? Of course they are, everybody knows why, because the Europeans don't want to see US or Israel to bomb Iran if they can push for a nuclear disarmament without war and It escalating out of control into a worldwide crisis.

 

[Roudy]

There's nothing wrong with what he said?

So what about the part where he threatens to deal heavy blows against the PA government in the West Bank for no reason at all other than to conquer more land?

Yes. Deal a heavy enough blow to make them think twice about attacking Israel again. Nothing wrong with anything he said. That tells me he understands Palestinian Mentality (TM) very well.

 

[Roudy]

What exactly is wrong with Netanyahu saying that Iranian missiles could eventually reach the US? That's the truth. Even the Iranians brag about their capabilities and parade heir missiles all the time with warnings for the US on the trucks that are carrying them.

But no, since Netanyahu said it, he's up to no good. LOL.

 

[Hoffstra]

The only good thing about Iranians missiles being able to reach the USA, is that they could EASILY hit Israel..if they dared to launch a war.

See? every cloud has a silver lining.

 

[Hossfly]

The only good thing about Iranians missiles being able to reach the USA, is that they could EASILY hit Israel..if they dared to launch a war.

See? every cloud has a silver lining.

You forget one thing. Israel has those submarines that can shoot missiles right back at Iran.