The US SecState is on a tour of the Middle East (not really the world tour) to spread the Neocon anti-Iran rhetoric….
The Neocons were silenced for awhile by the Early Trump admin but he has relieved himself of all the responsible people and has hired nutcase Neocons like Bolton and Pompeo…..so Trump and his Neocon lackeys are recycling the hate speech from the past……
There are times when I wish that the United States would just drop the charade and declare itself a global empire. As a veteran of two imperial wars, a witness to the dark underside of America’s empire-denial, I’ve grown tired of the equivocation and denials from senior policymakers. The U.S. can’t be an empire, we’re told, because – unlike the Brits and Romans – America doesn’t annex territories outright, and our school children don’t color its colonies in red-white-and-blue on cute educational maps.
But this distinction, at root, is rather superficial. Conquest, colonization, and annexation are so 19th century – Washington has moved beyond the overt and engages in the (not-so) subtle modern form of imperialism. America’s empire over the last two decades – under Democrats and Republicans – has used a range of tools: economic, military, political, to topple regimes, instigate coups, and starve “enemy” civilians. Heck, it didn’t even start with 9/11 – bullying foreigners and overturning uncooperative regimes is as American as apple pie.
But I’m getting ahead of myself: In order to bamboozle the American public into believing that this was a defensive and justifiable war, the neocons and their allies came up with various arguments – Iraq’s alleged “weapons of mass destruction,” his purportedplans to attack his neighbors, and his supposed ability to threaten the continental U.S. – but their central if only implied talking point was that Saddam was in some way instrumental in bringing about the 9/11 terrorist attacks. For the most part, this was not stated explicitly; the idea was to link Saddam and Osama by referring to them in the same sentence. Yet the implication was clear, and the administration and its media amen corner returned to this theme again and again, arguing that we had to strike Iraq in answer to al-Qaeda’s murderous sneak attack.
We do not hear much about Iran these….any events are blocked out by legal shenanigans or the “wall” controversy or …..well a wealth of other ramblings by the media….
I have decided to return to what I know the best (if anyone can claim that) the Middle East….might as well use that degree that I paid dearly for, huh?
Iran is the change bird…..a friend that became an enemy that became a major player in the Middle East…..of course we could argue that the US involvement in the region for 40 years could be a major influence in Iran ascendancy to the top of the movers and shakers. (More on this in a later post)
Since 1979 there have been major sanctions on Iran and every president since has added o the suffering of the Iranian people by imposing more sanctions….but if these sanctions actually worked why is Iran still a thorn in the side of the US?
The Middle East Conference at Warsaw, co-hosted by Poland and the US State Department on February 13 & 14, and the Munich Conference. Differences between the EU and the US over dealing with challenges in the Middle East, as well as Iran, were reiterated during both these events.
The Middle East Conference in Warsaw lacked legitimacy, as a number of important individuals were not present. Some of the notable absentees were the EU Foreign Policy Chief, Federica Mogherini, and the Foreign Ministers of Germany, France, and Italy. Significantly, on February 14, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, Russian President Vladimir Putin, and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan met in Sochi, Russia to discuss the latest developments in Syria and how the three countries could work together.
The sanctions have been a gamble with the US pushing more and more chips into the hand and losing on most fronts….
As usual the rhetoric from Israel continues to threaten Iran with the urging of the US…..and now Iran has responded to Trump and his neocon buddies…..
Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif accused Israel of engaging in “adventurism” with its bombing campaigns in Syria and said he could not rule out the possibility of a military conflict between the countries.
Zarif told the Sueddeutsche Zeitung newspaper that Iran was in Syria at the invitation of the Syrian government, while Israel was violating Lebanese and Syrian air space, as well as international law.
“There is adventurism on Israel’s side, and adventurism is always dangerous,” Zarif told the newspaper in an interview to be published on Thursday.
Asked if he saw an emerging military conflict between Iran and Israel, Zarif said, “I do not, but we cannot exclude the possibility.”
Let us see how Israel responds….this is dangerous talk from both sides…..
As usual the US uses a proxy….this time it is possibly the Saudis……in a recent attack in Iran by terrorists the Iranians responded…..
The commander of the overseas arm of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards threatened Saudi Arabia with revenge over a suicide bomb attack in southeastern Iran on Feb. 13 that killed 27 Guards members, the semi-official Tasnim news agency reported on Thursday.
“Saudi Arabia is building its regional influence with money only. This is a false influence and a failure…We will take revenge for our martyrs…(and) it might be anywhere around the world,” Qasem Soleimani said, according to Tasnim.
The Islamic Republic has accused arch regional rivals Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates of backing militants who carry out attacks on security forces in Iran. Saudi Arabia and the UAE have denied any connection with the attacks
The Sunni Muslim militant group Jaish al Adl (Army of Justice), which says it seeks greater rights and better living conditions for ethnic minority Baluchis in Iran, claimed responsibility for the attack near the border with Pakistan.
Iran’s Shi’ite Muslim authorities say militant groups operate from safe havens in Pakistan and have repeatedly called on the neighbouring country to crack down on them.
“I am warning you: Don’t test Iran’s tolerance,” Soleimani said in the latest in a series of warnings issued by Iranian officials since the attack was carried out.
But why is there such rivalry between the Saudis and the Iranians……
But this statement is in contrast to what the Iranian president has recently stated…..
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said on Sunday that Tehran wants to co-operate with its Gulf neighbors, after decades of hostility and proxy wars, even as the commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard hit out at the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia.
“Iran is ready to work with regional states to preserve security in the Middle East … Our enemies, America and Israel, want to create division among Iranians,” Rouhani said in a public speech in southern Iran, broadcast live on state TV.
“We want to establish brotherly ties with all countries of the region … Iran has never started any aggression in the region.”
Confused? Learn stuff!
Hopefully those videos were helpful…..
Will all this sanction stuff and the rhetoricmeet with failure?
John Bolton and Mike Pompeo are pushing Trump down a proven path of failure.
The question that most of the world is asking is….will Trump start another war this time with Iran?
Keeping track of the Trump administration’s foreign policy is like trying to track a cat on a hot tin roof: We’re pulling out of Syria (not right away). We’re leaving Afghanistan (sometime in the future). Mexico is going to pay for a wall (no, it isn’t). Saudi Arabia, Russia, the European Union, China, Turkey, North Korea — one day friends, another day foes.
During the Warsaw anti-Iran conference, Pompeo declared both peace and stability to be “just not possible” without confronting Iran. And to be clear, administration officials maintain they’re confronting Iran at an unprecedentedly high rate.
This suggests that when Pompeo says confronting Iran is vital to peace, and the key to solving effectively every problem in the Middle East, he’s using the term “confront” the same way Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s transcript was changed from “war” to “confrontation.”
People and faces change but the song remains the same.
I have to go to the doctor this morning so I leave (for now) with a history lesson (was that an eye roll?)
40 years on and the US is still slobbering to return to the days of the Shah…but the Fall……
the 40th anniversary of the Iranian Revolution, we published an articleexplaining what the revolution can teach us about the economic and political problems facing Iran now. Today, I’d like to focus on the geopolitical implications of the revolution that saw the overthrow of the Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, and the rise of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. It was a formidable time for the country, but the existing geopolitics of the region remained largely intact.
Most observers didn’t expect the shah to fall, although many claimed afterward that they had predicted it. The shah, who was essentially installed by the United States and Britain, was used as a bulwark of the American containment strategy. He unseated democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, who the U.S. feared was aligned with the Soviets, and helped to block Soviet access to the Persian Gulf. He claimed to be the heir to the Iranian monarchy, but in reality, he sat on the throne because of a coup staged in 1925 by his father, Reza Shah Pahlavi, a military officer who himself had no connections to the long line of Persian monarchs.
Mohammad Reza Pahlavi enjoyed immense wealth but left his people profoundly unsatisfied, both economically and spiritually. Emulating Turkey’s Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, his father had sought a secular, militarist and authoritarian path to modernization. Iran’s merchant class didn’t care much about the modernization plans and demanded a cut of the country’s wealth. The shah appeared indifferent to their plight.
Khomeini did not. He bound up the grievances of the merchants and the peasants with the tenets of Shiite Islam. While sitting in exile in Paris, he sent copies of his sermons and speeches in which he laid out how the shah had betrayed Islam and stolen the wealth of the nation through his lavish and lascivious lifestyle. Experts dismissed him and the growing dissatisfaction, believing that discontent was a constant reality in Iran and that the shah could contain it.
From the American point of view, the shah was a great comfort. In 1973, OPEC, led by Saudi Arabia, had cut off oil shipments to the United States and parts of Europe. At the time, the Saudis were involved in the Arab-Israeli War and sought to outflank Soviet-sponsored Arab movements, especially Palestinian ones. The Soviets had supported coups in Iraq and Syria and backed paramilitary groups from both countries that were formally designed to confront Israel but were actually far more focused on Saudi Arabia. If Saudi Arabia could be destabilized and the flow of oil interrupted, the Soviets thought, the position of the United States and Western Europe would be vastly weakened.
But the Saudis beat the Soviets to the punch by imposing an oil embargo themselves, undercutting Soviet attempts to make it appear that Saudi Arabia was an American puppet. The price of oil soared, creating a global recession. For the United States, the embargo was a mixture of pain and pleasure. On one hand, it caused massive economic disruption. On the other, it was Saudi Arabia, not a Soviet-linked Palestinian group, presiding over an Arab renaissance.
Iran, an enemy of Saudi Arabia, continued to ship oil to the West and made a lot of money in the process, which it largely spent on defense. There was serious talk of Iran becoming a regional hegemon and a nuclear power. The U.S. didn’t vigorously object to any of this. Given the global oil shortage, even after the embargo had ended, the United States had two overriding interests: to contain the Soviet Union and its apparent proxy, Iraq, and to ensure access to the Persian Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz.
U.S. intelligence worked closely with SAVAK, the shah’s intelligence service. The agency became Washington’s chief source of information on Iran – but SAVAK didn’t transmit any warning about the uprising to the U.S., either because it didn’t want to or because it didn’t anticipate the level of the unrest. Moreover, the United States’ other intelligence sources in Iran were part of the elite – the higher the sources, the greater the knowledge they can share, or so the U.S. believed. The problem, however, was that the elites were profiting from their ties to the regime and so were unlikely to reveal evidence of its demise until it was too late.
More important, it’s not easy to find sources who know when uprisings will occur and how they will turn out. The last people to know the shah was going to fall were those in the powerful classes, on whom the U.S. relied for intelligence. The idea that an extreme Shiite leader, sitting in exile in Paris, could manage an uprising against the man who could have brought the country to regional hegemony ran counter to all notions of power and continuity in Washington. President Jimmy Carter went out of his way to show his support for the shah almost to the end. It was inconceivable that the powerful would not remain powerful, or that a trained army could not defeat a rabble of protesters.
Those outside the government were equally deluded. Human rights groups loathed the shah for torturing and murdering his people. They made the same mistake that similar groups often make: believing that if a vile government is overthrown, what replaces it will be better. To appease his dissenters, Khomeini appointed a moderate, Mehdi Bazargan, as prime minister. But Bazargan’s liberal positions came into conflict with those of the radical Shiites who controlled the revolution, and his government fell.
The U.S. learned two lessons from this experience. First, you can’t rely solely on official intelligence sources to figure out what’s happening on the ground. Sometimes, the most valuable piece of intel is the reality staring you in the face. Second, geopolitics can be shifted but not obliterated. Iran under an Islamic regime was as hostile to Iraq and the Saudis and ambivalent toward the Kurds as it was under a secular one. Some things changed (Iran became hostile toward the United States), but other things stayed the same (its tensions with the Soviets continued). And as hostile as the U.S.-Iran relationship became, the U.S. continued to help supply Iran with weapons (hence the Iran-Contra affair). Geopolitically, regime change doesn’t alter as much as you might expect.
I’m still surprised at the failure of truly intelligent men and women in and out of government to understand that the shah was about to fall. In the 1980s, many of us were equally unable to grasp that the Soviets were hanging on for dear life. What is so obvious in retrospect was shrouded in the moment. But it shouldn’t have been. It was there for all to see, but recognizing it required looking behind the appearance of power and breaking the habit of believing that things always stay the same. The fall of the shah meant many things, but the failure to foresee his demise was ultimately about a lack of imagination and the inability to grasp that what was true yesterday might not be true tomorrow.
Your history lesson is complete…….and now a Neocon assessment of Iran…..
Forr almost two years, before President Trump ordered the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria in December 2018, the Trump administration pursued an Iran policy based on the use of all instruments of national power to stop Tehran from engaging in a wide array of aggressive and malign behaviors that defy global norms. In his May 21, 2018 speech, “A New Iran Strategy,” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called on Iran to end verifiably its nuclear weapons and advanced ballistic missile programs, cease its support for terrorism and the destabilization of foreign governments, release all hostages, and halt its aggression against Israel and other U.S. allies.1
To achieve these objectives, the administration designed a strategy to pressure the regime – diplomatically, economically, and militarily. To that end, the administration walked away from the nuclear deal known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and reinstated the comprehensive sanctions that had forced Iran to the negotiating table in 2013. The focal point of U.S. strategy was to intensify the Iranian regime’s ongoing liquidity crisis, which threatened to cripple its economy as a whole. The secretary of state also insisted the U.S. “will advocate tirelessly for the Iranian people,” who endure grave human rights violations and pervasive corruption. The Trump administration made it clear that it did not seek regime change, but would take advantage of the Islamic Republic’s deficit of legitimacy. In short, the U.S. purported to implement a policy of maximum pressure.
CoS Bolton is going around the world drumming yup support for a possible trip to Iran (by trip I mean some sort of military action)…..
Bolton is what Bolton always does….protects Israel over the interests of this country.
Hiss newest con job on the world is about the possibility of an attack by Iran….and he has gone viral with the warmongers….
Here’s the dire warning National Security Advisor John Bolton brought Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Jan. 6: “We have little doubt that Iran’s leadership is still strategically committed to achieving deliverable nuclear weapons.”
I have found zero evidence to support Bolton’s claim. It is unclear who “we” means, but it certainly does not include the American intelligence community. They have found exactly the opposite.
While it is currently trendy to fact-check Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, allow me to suggest that it matters more — a lot more —when statements made by the national security advisor are untrue. This four-Pinocchio claim is a true whopper and has serious national security implications.
The options they delivered were reportedly very limited. They involved little more than a show of force with limited airstrikes against some random Iranian military site. This was far short of what Bolton wanted, but former Defense Secretary James Mattis argued that even this was a bad idea, and no attack has happened yet.
But the National Security Council are still saying the attack plans are being considered, and Mattis is no longer around to argue against it. This potentially would allow Bolton to push for the symbolic attack and hope it escalates into more, or to push the Mattis-less Pentagon for even bigger plans for more ambitious wars.
Like I keep saying….watch for that one small incident that can be used to turn this from a war or words to a war of bullets and missiles.
Why would I say this? Pompeo has trotted through the Middle East beat the drums of war…..
The United States’ international windbag, Secretary of Defense (read: War) Mike Pompeo has been acting the imperial blowhard throughout the Middle East. With his boss busy denying that he’s a Russian agent, watching advisors and cabinet members come and go with dizzying alacrity, and dodging porn-star accusations, Pompeo is trotting through the Middle East, sounding war drums.
It seems that Iran, which has long been in the crosshairs of U.S. gunboat ‘diplomacy’, remains firmly targeted. In Cairo, Pompeo promised a “…campaign to stop Iran’s malevolent influence and actions against this region and the world”.
For those that want to know what went wrong and the US and Iran were at each other’s throats……all this animosity began with the hostage situation from the 1970s……if one would like to see how all this manure began then the national archives can help…..
The Iran Hostage Crisis was a major international crisis caused by the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and its employees by revolutionary Iranian students, who then held the Embassy employees as hostages, in direct violation of international law. The revolutionary government of Iran, under the Ayatollah Khomeini, supported the hostage undertaking. The crisis ended with the release of the hostages after a captivity of 444 days, from November 4, 1979 to January 20, 1981.
I can hear the late senator John McCain singing that song during the 2008 presidential election…..it is the mantra of the Neocons and their masters the Israelis for decades. Since 1979 the Israelis have preyed on the US neocon hatred for what the Iranians did to the US in that year.
SO when the news came out the Bolton had asked for plans for an attack on Iran made none of us old farts surprised…it it old hat to Neocon behavior…..
The attack—three mortar shells launched into Baghdad’s diplomatic sector by Iranian militants—injured no one, but the Wall Street Journal is now reporting that it “triggered unusual alarm” inside the Trump administration. National Security Adviser John Bolton responded by asking the Pentagon to draw up plans to attack Iran, a request so unusual and a response considered so outsize by many senior administration officials that it “definitely rattled people,” one such official tells the Journal. “People were shocked. It was mind-boggling how cavalier they were about hitting Iran.” An NSC rep says it simply “coordinates policy and provides the president with options to anticipate and respond to a variety of threats.” Bolton has long advocated regime change in Tehran, notes the Journal, and penned a 2015 New York Times op-ed with the headline, “To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran.”
I have listened to the many speeches and pressers from this president…..at best his words are not much more than babble from a buffoon…..if you had something to say then he would not have to ad lib his way through a presser……90 minutes of lies and half truths…..
But let’s go to Syria.
Trump has sent the pro war media and the Neocons into a tizzy fit when he announced that the US would withdraw from Syria and a draw down of troops in Afghanistan.
The warmongers stroked out and then set about belittling everything the president has said and the MSM is their tool of choice.
I am waiting to see how the statements by the president will play with the Neocons and the warmongers…..which words?
Speaking with reporters on Wednesday, President Trump acknowledged that while Iran is also pulling people out of Syria, they “can frankly do whatever they want there.” He added that the he doesn’t want to be in Syria forever.
While this is likely intended more as a statement of fact than policy, it’s gaining a lot of attention, particularly in the international press. This is likely because the existing Pentagon narrative, before Trump ordered the pullout, was that Iran was a primary reason for the US to keep troops in Syria forever.
While US troops were sent to Syria to fight ISIS, as the defeat of ISIS grew near a lot of officials started shifting the narrative to one of forcing Iran out, which itself was defined broadly as expelling Shi’ite militias deemed friendly to Iran.
That broadening of the definition of Iran, which allowed Israel to at times claim preposterous numbers of “Iranian forces” in Syria, would also make Trump’s acknowledgement of an Iranian drawdown unusual. Though true, any number of actual Iranian advisers leaving Syria would be a trivially small percentage of the “Iranian forces” when one factors in vast militias from Iraq and Pakistan.
Not something the war hawks want to hear when mentioning Iran….the only country that will “freak” over Iran in Syria is Israel…..they have needed an actual enemy over the years and after 1979 Iran fits the bill perfectly.
But really…..what is this obsession over Iran in Syria?
Ambassador James Jeffrey, the U.S. Special Representative for Syria Engagement, disclosed to Russian reporters last week that U.S. and Russian mercenaries have clashed in Syria multiple times in the last several months. While he did not offer any specifics, he said “U.S. forces are legitimately in Syria, supporting local forces [in the fight against the Islamic State] … they exercise the right of self-defense when they feel threatened.”
But the U.S. has admitted that ISIS has largely been defeated, and the Trump administration has ordered troops to stay put indefinitely in Syria to counter against Iranian influence, the administration’s current comprehensive foreign policy bogeyman. As national security adviser John Bolton told the UN General Assembly in September, “We’re not going to leave as long as Iranian troops are outside Iranian borders, and that includes Iranian proxies and militias.”
But let’s say that we can say the Russia and Iran have won the Syrian conflict….what will it matter in the grand scheme?
President Trump has decided to pull all U.S. troops from Syria despite Pentagon objections. If these reports turn out to be accurate, the academic, public, and political debate over who ‘lost’ Syria will rage for days or weeks. Opponents of this decision will claim that a U.S. withdrawal hands both Russia and Iran a significant ‘victory’ in the contest for regional influence in the Middle East. However, these criticisms are overblown. Russia and Iran were positioned from the beginning to be the dominant influencers in the course of Syria’s civil war. Moreover, what passes for a short-term win for Moscow and Tehran will likely prove to be a rather hollow and Pyrrhic victory.
Our Dear Leader and his minions are making goddamn sure that the US must stand alone against most of the world….the games they are playing internationally benefits no one but the M-IC….the latest game being played by the “God Squad”…….
Three years ago, as Americans debated the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) agreement with the Islamic Republic of Iran—popularly known as “the Iran deal”—I highlighted a troubling media trend on FAIR.org (8/20/15): “For nearly all commentators, regardless of their position, war is the only alternative to that position.”
In the months since US President Donald Trump tore up the JCPOA agreement, his administration has been trying to make good on corporate media’s collective prediction. Last week, John Bolton (BBC, 9/26/18), Trump’s national security advisor and chief warmonger, told Iran’s leaders and the world that there would be “hell to pay” if they dare to “cross us.”
Keep in mind how many countries we have taken to deciding who could lead…Iran, Guatemala and Chile come quickly to mind….these countries were chosen because corporate America wanted them to change.
In response to a UN court order that the US lift sanctions on Iran, the Trump administration said Wednesday it was terminating a decades-old treaty affirming friendly relations between the two countries. The move is a largely symbolic gesture that highlights deteriorating relations between Washington and Tehran, the AP reports. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said withdrawing from the 1955 Treaty of Amity was long overdue and followed Iran “groundlessly” bringing a complaint with the International Court of Justice challenging US sanctions on the basis that they were a violation of the pact. Meanwhile, national security adviser John Bolton said the administration also was pulling out of an amendment to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations that Iran or others, notably the Palestinians, could use to sue the US at The Hague-based tribunal. Bolton told reporters at the White House that the provision violates US sovereignty.
“The United States will not sit idly by as baseless politicized claims are brought against us,” Bolton said. He cited a case brought to the court by the “so-called state of Palestine” challenging the move of the US Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem as the main reason for withdrawing. Bolton, who last month unleashed a torrent of criticism against the International Criminal Court, noted that previous Republican administrations had pulled out of various international agreements and bodies over “politicized cases.” He said the administration would review all accords that might subject the US to prosecution by international courts or panels. Earlier, Pompeo denounced the Iranian case before the UN court as “meritless” and said the Treaty of Amity was meaningless and absurd. “The Iranians have been ignoring it for an awfully long time, we ought to have pulled out of it decades ago,” he told reporters at the State Department. Click for more on the little-known treaty and the UN ruling.
This is just yet another game being played by Trump’s Neocon butt boys….this will cost American lives in the long run.
But why? For what purpose?
We had a treaty with Iran…Our Dear Leader decided he would drop out of it and then decided to push for a nuke treaty….
The United States is seeking to negotiate a treaty with Iran to include Tehran’s ballistic missile programme and regional activity, the US special envoy for Iran said on Wednesday, ahead of UN meetings in New York next week.
Iran has rejected US attempts to hold high-level talks since President Donald Trump tore up a nuclear deal between Tehran and six world powers earlier this year.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo listed a dozen demands in May that he said could make up a new agreement, although envoy Brian Hook’s reference to a treaty, which would have to be approved by the US Senate, appears to be a new focus.
Seriously? Iran will probably tell the US and Trumpy to go crap in one hand and wish in the other and see which fills first.
This is just another pathetic game being played by a pathetic leader.
This is what we get for an uninformed electorate that turn over foreign policy to warmongering toads.
A closing thought——
Americans are right to want more prudent, realistic foreign policy. Such a policy would not sacrifice U.S. blood and treasure on wars intended to spread democracy and reorder societies rather than focus on defending Americans. It would not attempt to impose an external military solution on the internal political problems of other nations. It would not burden America’s military with tasks for which it is not designed and to which it is not suited.
But not happening as long as we have this batch of neocon zombies in control…..
Let me reiterate……Corporate America calling the shots….some things never change…they called the shots in Guatemala and Iran in the 50’s and Chile in the 70’s…..and they are still making decisions that involve our troops that will face death in their behalf. Time for that to change….permanently!