Russia Discloses The Iran Ultimatum: Cooperate Or Be Invaded By Year End

Tyler Durden's picture

In what can only be seen as raising the rhetoric bar on the timing, scale, and seriousness of the Iran 'situation', Kommersant is reporting that "Tehran has one last chance" as US Secretary of State Clinton asks her Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov to relay the message to Iranian leaders. If this 'last chance' is wasted an attack will happen in months as diplomats noted that the probability of an Israel/US attack on Iran is now a specific 'when' instead of an indefinite 'if'. The sentiment is best summarized by a quote from inside the meeting "The invasion will happen before year’s end. The Israelis are de facto blackmailing Obama. They’ve put him in this interesting position – either he supports the war or loses the support of the Jewish lobby". Russian diplomats, as Russia Today points out, criticized the 'last chance' rhetoric as unprofessional suggesting "those tempted to use military force should restrain themselves - a war will not solve any problems, but create a million new ones."

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
scatterbrains's picture

in other news the cb's have saved the banks for another day..  gas is going to $5 a gal.  but that's ok..  if we have to eat gruel to save the system, so be it.


Spastica Rex's picture

I have a lot of wind turbines on the hills where I live. I'll use them to power my car.


French Frog's picture

"a war will not solve any problems, but create a million new ones"

Sadly, this has rarely (never?) stopped anyone from starting one

Dick Gazinia's picture

I sure hope that Barry the Pimp kept the reciept for that Nobel Peace Prize.

A Nanny Moose's picture

....but but but...Iranians pave their roads with baby heads. They are bad.

ElvisDog's picture

Not only that, but the 60 planes or so in Iranian air force with some dating to the Vietnam era are a clear and present danger to the Eastern seaboard of the U.S. And don't forget their millions of Sunburn missiles that are targeted to blow up every elementary school in the U.S.

caconhma's picture

Kommersant  is a Russian zionist business newspaper.

Consequently, this is just another zionist newspaper. As for Russians, they are not friends of Iran (like they were not fiends of Qaddafi). Iranian knows this.

America has lost in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran will be the American Empire end!

CIABS's picture

I'll believe this attack when I see it.

General Decline's picture

Well, I did hear Ahmandidajad likes to kick puppies....Now roads paved with baby heads???   WHAT ARE WE WAITING FOR?!?!

Hober Mallow's picture

Nothing to wait

Lets bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb

Disenchanted's picture

me too...


all I see is a lot of kosher kunts(and their gentile poodles) waving their little dicks around in the air during their 2 minute (I) hate (Iran) sessions.


all bark and no bite.

CompassionateFascist's picture

Israel bites. Zion is going to use the IranWar to render harmless Iran AND get rid of Obama, replacing him with absolute ZOGstooge Romney. The latter goal suggests that the war will begin c. July-August.

caconhma's picture

One more time.

The Gulf Confrontation: Conclusions

1.     Iran will have a nuclear capability of a dozen weapons within 60 months with the missile and fighter delivery systems required to strike targets in Israel, the GCC states, and regional US military forces.


2.     Iran has the naval power (mines, submarines, patrol/missile boats) and shore-­based anti-­ship missiles to close Gulf oil deliveries and strike Saudi/GCC petroleum facilities.


3.     US air and naval power could neutralize Iranian naval power and nuclear production facilities only with a sustained attack campaign of several months duration requiring Saudi and GCC basing support. The Gulf Arab states would support this operation.


4.     Iran has significant economic and political internal problems which when compressed by the recent US Congressional sanctions may cause it to implode at some point. Iran will not for any reason forsake its nuclear ambitions.


5.     The Israelis lack any credible conventional military power to counter the Iranian nuclear threat. Their forced option would be pre-­emptive nuclear strike.


6.     There is a significant chance of Iranian miscalculation resulting in major military confrontation in the Gulf in the coming 12 months.


GEN Barry R. McCaffrey, USA (Ret.)

January 2012



Loot at items #3 & 6.  The USA will need to use Saudi and GCC basing support. This is the time for

·         Us to become worried

·         Iran to execute a “Perl Harbor #2”



There is no way Obama will start this mess before the elections. He is a POS but he is not an idiot (unless he will be under duress!)


UP Forester's picture

That the same GEN Barry R. McCaffrey, USA (Ret.) that is a member of the CFR, last command of US Southern Command (Central and South America), and was big into co-ordinating international drug (trafficking) control, before becoming the NBC terrorism pundit?

i-dog's picture

Yep. That's the dood. Former 'Drug Czar'. Quite a CV. Roman Catholic, too ... I wonder if he's a Jesuit? Went to school at Daddy Bush's alma mater, Phillips Academy. Got da right credentialz for a bit of war mongering in the Middle East, man!

It gets even better:

  • Director, Atlantic Council
  • Member, Committee for the Liberation [sic] of Iraq
  • Board member, Dyncorp
  • Board member, Integrated Defense Technologies
  • Board member, McNeil Technologies
  • Board member, Vertex Aerospace
  • Board member, VisionAIR
  • Board member, Wornick Co.
  • Advisory Coucil member, Veritas Capital Defense and Aerospace

Noooooo interest in selling arms to murder brown people ... No way ... Never.

i-dog's picture

Nice NWO propaganda piece!

Perpetuates the myth of 9-11 ... perpetuates the myth that "capitalism" is the cause of the welfare state, restrictive trade practices and crony fascism. All in all, a very emotive piece that bypasses the NWO-bankster takeover and blames it all on "Wall Street" (ie. the evil speculators) and "Corporations" in general (without even touching on the subject of multinationals hiding profits outside US jurisdiction in the NWO's global playground).

In summary: the usual NWO-Marxist drivel.

Disenchanted's picture

yup...controlling all sides of an issue is the name of the game, right?

SemperFord's picture

Clear and Present Danger??? So Harrison Ford is going to star in this War???

UP Forester's picture

More like Daniel Baldwin....

dark pools of soros's picture

i think it really means, 'a war won't solve any problems, but will create a million, billion, trillion new debt notes'


and that's the real point of it all anyway

General Decline's picture

Didn't Sun Tsu say the element of surprise is of the upmost importance in warfare?  Since Hill-Billery is telegraphing her blows by warning them when the bombing will start, then the conspricy theorist in me is thinking Iran's upper leadership might be in on this whole war thing. 

Does anybody know if Goldman Sachs donated to Ahmandidajad's campaign fund?

Disenchanted's picture


I don't know about that, but Qaddafi donated to Nicolas Sarkozy's campaign.

What a muppet.

SheepDog-One's picture

'Save the system, by crushing the system from within to the point no person would ever trust it again'.....BRILLIANT!

TruthInSunshine's picture

This may or may not be remotely accurate (obvious; I know).

In other words, only a select few know the real goal and end game, and the level of psychops (and stealthops) has reached such a fevered pitch during an American 'election' (alleged) year that one would be a fool to rely on statements allegedly made by politicians or technocrats, whether 'leaked' or stated loudly from the highest Op/Ed piece, regarding that which the future holds to be probable, let alone definitive, relating to the issue of Iran's alleged nuclear program.

Hedge accordingly.

Son of Loki's picture

Since over 86% of Americans polled are against another war, my guess is war is imminent.

cnx's picture

According to Reuters, most Americans ARE in favour of a war against Iran, despite rising gas prices. So yes, war appears to be imminent:

SheepDog-One's picture

Misleading post. Qualifiers in that data are 'If Iran were shown to have a nuclear weapon'...well they dont have one even Panetta admits it, so the poll itself is irrelevant.

EBR MOD 0's picture

it is about gold for oil and them not using the petro dollar.

Totentänzerlied's picture

If Iraq was shown to have WMDs...

I think we all know how that turned out

cnx's picture

Exactly, Iraq is the prime example of what may constitute "evidence" for the possesion of dangerous weapons... The quality of the accepted "evidence" nowadays that allows a war to trigger is almost as good as the recent collateral standard of the ECB...

Dugald's picture

They don't have an AW? waul just send over one of ours, leave it where it's easily found, and lets get on with damned war fer chists let's go go go go....

DaveyJones's picture

Think of it like TARP, with more blood and money handed over to evil bastards

HurricaneSeason's picture

They aren't necessarily bastards.

UP Forester's picture

You're right.  Some are vicious cunts.

JohnKozac's picture

Only 86%? Everyone I asked is against more war...that's 100% in my Main Street poll.

connda's picture

If true, it's not like anyone in the government gives a rip what the American public thinks.

I'm not sure if that's true or not though.  Most of the Americans I know, including friends, have pretty much drunk the Kool-Aide, and at least passively support an armed intervention.  Just wondering if they'll think the same when WWII-type rationing hits their doorsteps.  Oh, and $20 gas at the pump that they can only fill up at once a week.  Well, unless you're a government official or a corporate executive.

I don't know why I care.  If SHTF, I just head to our rural home, turn on CNN, and make a pot of coffee. 

LongBalls's picture

Say what you will about this statement; the truth is out there for all to see. It's called the Bible and it fortells a world war that will kill 1/3 of mankind. I am as hedged as God intended for all of humanity. I suggest all do the same. IMHO.

"Money is the root of all evil" - God

trembo slice's picture

Money is the root of productivity beyond mere substinence.  Without money, an economy of indirect exchange cannot emerge.  No indirect exchange means no specialization.  No specialization means we still live in huts.  God is an idiot if he said that.

LawsofPhysics's picture

Yes, now about the moral hazard and what happens when fraud is not fucking prosecuted and the rule of law is not upheld.  Regarding the religious "laws" or the "laws" of ivy league eCONomists.  The laws of physics and nature really just don't give a shit.

Totentänzerlied's picture

The Rule of Law is and always has been and always will be an impossibility and a fairytale, plan accordingly.

TruthInSunshine's picture

Money is a tool, like an axe.

It's up to the individual if they want to use it for good or evil.

kridkrid's picture

First of all, I think most of us can agree that "god" didn't say anything on the matter.  More importantly, however, what you have written is part of a narrative that isn't entirely true.  People can (and have in the past) specialized and bartered without the existence of "money".  And "money" can take a lot of different forms.  Bankers want us to believe it is money that allows us an existence greater than that of subsistence... they also know "allow me to issue the money, and I care not who makes the laws".  

But to say "money is the root of productivity beyond mere subsistence"... that is flat out wrong (and borderline offensive).

trembo slice's picture

ok... then the medium of exchange (or money) sorry my vocabulary offended you.  religious nutjobs downgrading my shit.

kridkrid's picture

This isn't about semantics. - a fantastic book, if you have the time.


Before there was money, there was debt

Every economics textbook says the same thing: Money was invented to replace onerous and complicated barter systems—to relieve ancient people from having to haul their goods to market. The problem with this version of history? There’s not a shred of evidence to support it.

Here anthropologist David Graeber presents a stunning reversal of conventional wisdom. He shows that for more than 5,000 years, since the beginnings of the first agrarian empires, humans have used elaborate credit systems to buy and sell goods—that is, long before the invention of coins or cash. It is in this era, Graeber argues, that we also first encounter a society divided into debtors and creditors. 

Graeber shows that arguments about debt and debt forgiveness have been at the center of political debates from Italy to China, as well as sparking innumerable insurrections. He also brilliantly demonstrates that the language of the ancient works of law and religion (words like “guilt,” “sin,” and “redemption”) derive in large part from ancient debates about debt, and shape even our most basic ideas of right and wrong. We are still fighting these battles today without knowing it.

Debt: The First 5,000 Years is a fascinating chronicle of this little known history—as well as how it has defined human history, and what it means for the credit crisis of the present day and the future of our economy

trembo slice's picture

A sincere question:  if there was no unit of account, how was debt measured?  Was it totally unprecise?  I will not read the book, so its better if you just answer the simple question.

kridkrid's picture

Lots of different ways.  One example... weddings are historically one of the more costly "life experiences".  In some cultures, a bride, after marriage, would go to the home of the of "nobleman" who funded the wedding.  She would serve him until he grew tired and then work of the rest of her debt as a prostitute serving workers who worked for said nobleman.  Sometime later she would return to her groom.  

However one measures it... debt is a form of bondage.  Our current system is more sophisticated, but it is still bondage.  Understanding the difference between debt based currency and a hard currency is important.  Understanding the nature of money is important.  Understanding that the narrative of "money created the opportunity for specialization and societal advancement" is not actually true is important.  

trembo slice's picture

An acceptable answer; particularly the bit about debt being bondage.  The only qualm I have with your premise is that the Industrial Revolution didn't occur until there was a medium of exchange that offered:

1) unit of account
2) unit of deferred payment
3) store of value

While the privileged classes, your nobleman, certainly enjoyed a life beyond bare subsitenance... the majority of mankind lived in deplorable conditions until the Industrial Revolution.  There was no equality under the law (well there isn't really now either...), the notion of a rigid class system has been destroyed in our modern world.  Although there will always be attempts to maintain a feudal system (in a more sophisticated manner), all such attempts are throwbacks to a bygone era.

kridkrid's picture

The three things you list trace their history back thousands of years.  So why didn't the industrial revolution happen sooner?  You are providing credit to something that doesn't deserve credit (at least the lion's share).  I'm not a historian of the industrial revolution, so I'm not going to attempt to provide you with the laundry list of things that likely enabled the industrial revolution.  And to make sure my position is clear... I'm not arguing against money, per se... I'm merely pointing out the banker spun narrative that places greater importance on "money" than, for example, human ingenuity, is exactly that... a narrative.

msamour's picture

there were a number of things that were necessary in order to start the industrial revolution.

1) The formation of specialized trade groups and guilds.

2) A Secure place for these groups to practice their craft. Hence the cities were created to provide a means of security.

3) Loosening of restrictive laws that prevented entrepreneurs from developing new systems, and technologies

4) A paradigm shift in the mindset of the population. This was usually accomplished by affording the population of cities with a better access to education, and knowledge that country folks.

5) The shift of the noble class to the class of investors/entrepreneurs. The capital requirements at the initial start of the industrial revolution was modest, but increased dramatically as the potential for production increase. In many case, the cost of investment increased proportionally to the potential return on investment.

6) The emergence of a consumer class. At the beginning, it was only the nobles, but then greedy entrepreneurs expanded to attract more customers.


I believe the common denominators for the industrial revolution are as follows: Increased sense of security-> freedom to experiments with new ideas and systems-> Developments of new products -> increase production of goods -> creation of more governing systems of leadership (complex local, and regional governments) -> Specific leaders with enough vision to allow the paradigm change. ( And this one is important)


In conclusion, had there not been leaders that saw these transformation as beneficial, the leaders of the era would have sent the guards, or army into the cities to have them destroyed, and this transformation never would have occurred.