(Image: news.yahoo.com)

The Iranian people have got to stop attacking embassies.  It’s not an acceptable way to protest.  I’m not saying you can’t demonstrate in front of an embassy on your country’s soil to belt out epithets and a rash of pleas, but, you should not make a habit of burning embassies to the ground or taking the staff hostage.  In the parlance of international experts in law, an embassy is built on the purchased grounds of the country which the embassy represents and is protected under a myriad of treaties the most important being Article 31 of the Vienna Convention.  Diplomatic soil is meant to be sacrosanct.  Ask Julian Assange about that.  If the Ecuadoran Consulate in London did not enjoy this kind of respect, David Cameron, no stranger to criminal behavior or “poodleism”, would have invaded it and seized Mr. Assange only to hand him over for persecution to the British tyrant’s  favorite patrons, the Americans.

Flashing backwards to November of 1979, I was in my second year of law school, and no sooner had I picked up my Gunther textbook on Constitutional Law than I heard that the U.S. Embassy in Teheran was invaded by a group of Khomeini supporters who took the entire staff hostage for about 444 days.  This did not improve the image of the Iranians or their revolution – and it’s not like I was not aware of the background to their furious opposition to the United States; this was a time of revolt.  The U.S. was complicit with the Pahlavi monarchy, the Shah, in torturing those who protested against his autocratic, pro-Western rule.  They were punishing the SAVAK for its innumerable contraventions of humanitarian law with its administration of a prison (Evin) so notorious it conjures up images no different than those of Lubyanka, Andersonville or, even, for that matter, Devil’s Island.


I know that espionage flourishes under the protective dome of diplomacy.  Embassies have “legal” spies, those cloaked in diplomatic immunity as opposed to “illegals” who take their chances where they are assigned.  There are military attaches and commercial attaches, the latter sometimes tasked with stealing technology or detecting aggressive moves by a competing nation.  But, diplomatic status is exactly that and Iran has agreed to all the protocols which defend the existence of such legations on their soil.

To their credit, the Iranians have acted responsibly in arresting over 30 hooligans who set the Saudi embassy ablaze.  They have called for calm as rage envelops the region in the aftermath of the senseless and barbaric Wahhabist execution of Shaykh Nimr Baaqir Al-Nimr along with another 46, mostly accused terrorists allegedly belonging to Alqaeda.  But, how can we ever know who is guilty of what when the Saudi government runs its judicial system like a primordial clan of Neanderthals; “judges” basing their rulings on the canon law of Islam, Sharee’ah, which has never been codified anywhere and which may be resistant to any kind of uniformity?

But, now we must discuss the repercussions as Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the UAE and the Sudan break off all relations with Iran.  What does this portend for the region?   The answer is “nothing”.

To be brutally frank, this may be the best of all possible conclusions to the sorry history of relations between a race of apes bent on proving to the world the simple proposition that laziness, shiftlessness, mindlessness and utter intellectual emptiness is the way toward Paradise and a civilization, like that of Iran’s, which bursts at the seams with genius, homogeneousness and achievement.  Since the calamitous descent of Arabia into the bowels of the Wahhabist heresy, there has been no illuminating torch of understanding which would lead these unreconstructed troglodytes through the meandering, infolded, intestinal  labyrinth of darkness and, then, finally, through the sphincter tightened tautly at the threshold of Enlightenment.   It is for the best that Iran keep the Wahhabist cult far hence or risk being infected by it’s retro(grade) virus.

Saudi Arabia cannot afford another war while their illegal invasion of Yemen continues without any suggestion of an end, and while their virulent alliance with the world’s most horrifying terrorists continues in Syria and Iraq.  They can’t even afford another war because they neither have the wherewithal to support it, nor do they have the mercenaries to carry it out.  No – Pakistan is not coming to their aid.  And, no United States will be flying missions over Khuzistan to help knock out Iran’s massive missile arsenal.  Oh, but the French have their one single, teeny-weenie aircraft carrier in the Gulf – the Charles De Gaulle which will be deep-sixed in sixty seconds by Iran’s ground-to-sea missiles.  No, I’m afraid the Saudis are not up for any of this and their end, as a cult of death and nihilism, is all too imminent.  Do they really believe fighting Iran will be the same as fighting Yemen?

But, like the song, “Look for the Silver Lining”, we should bask in the glow of a brighter future devoid of laws which deprive women of the privilege to drive a car; laws which deprive women of the right to travel without their brothers’ chaperonage; where Christians may not build a church; where Ziad can’t sit down at a bar for a single-malt whiskey; where you can’t even attend the cinema.  And the list goes on and on.  And these are the very best of America’s allies!

Saudi women dress up for the annual Tupperware party.  No men allowed.  Talk about conformity as a function of Hell. 

I know Iran is not much different when it comes to women’s dress.  Yet, in Iran, women regularly attend college, drive cars, go to theaters, travel and participate in athletics despite the protestations of some of that country’s most constipated clerics.  Iranian women work with men in the same offices regardless of the theocratic character of their government with its overarching paternalism and in-built Middle Eastern suspicions about the uncontrollable concupiscence of the humans species.  Iran has a governmental structure built on Platonic principles filtered through the mind of Al-Faraabi; its origins are intellectual – unlike the monochrome, arid and petty concerns of apes whose only creed is the way to the nearest oasis.

Saudi Arabia wants to start a sectarian war with Iran.  Many commentators in the liberal Alternative Media think that is the case.  But, what do Sunnis think about that?  Do Sunnis really want a war with Iran?  I haven’t heard Egypt call for war.  There’s no mass movement anywhere demanding compensation for the burning of the Saudi Embassy.  It’s quite the opposite, most Sunni scholars have denounced the execution of Shaykh Nimr viewing it as another Saudi orgasm of excess.  If the Saudis wanted to improve relations with Iran (which they unabashedly deny), they would have had king salmaan pardon the shaykh, a gesture which would have elicited remarkable adulation in Teheran.  But, they didn’t.  Instead, they took him out like a common criminal and applied the sword.

Iran does not need Arabia for anything – not even for support at OPEC.  If the Iranians desperately needed to add dates to their diet, they can buy the best from Iraq.  Arabia produces nothing but oil.  The oil is located across the Persian Gulf where all those pesky Shi’is live and work.  What would it take for Iran to lob 50 Sijjil missiles at Saudi Arabia’s installations at Dhahraan?  Maybe a riot protesting Shaykh Nimr’s execution with attendant Saudi brutality – or maybe a riot in Bahrain with Saudi mercenaries applying their best tools of death.  Somewhere along the line, Iran will be tested as the natural defender of Shi’ism and the Saudis want nothing less.  The Saudis live in a temporal trap – it’s as though they were still in the Fifties with American firepower at the ready to extricate them from every conceivable peril.  Let’s see.  Eisenhower has been replaced by Obama.  Obama can’t stand the Saudis and he does not want to start a war with Iran.  The Saudis lose.  The people of Arabia win.

The phony “experts” are all weighing in about the breakdown of relations between Teheran and Riyaadh.  There’s really nothing to write about unless you are desperate for a subject you can use to crank out another soporific article.  I am excused, because I am writing about “nothing” which is what the rift between Iran and Arabia will lead to.  Don’t lose any sleep over this. ZAF

(Courtesy of Khalid Nawaz Al-Nouri)



I have showcased here my old friend’s article which has a side to it germane to many of the comments we receive from our readers. Seamus Muldoon is the nom de plume of Richard Solomon, Esq, a philosopher and expert on franchise/anti-trust law:


Caninelawyer sends us this one about Erdoghan:



WILE E. COYOTE MOMENT:  (Thanks, Thucidydes)



Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted