http://www.debka.com/article/22036/US-Arab-exercise-drills-Iran-landing-Syrian-rebels-obtain-German-machine-guns
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report May 28, 2012, 5:59 PM (GMT+02:00)
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-national-attack-authorization-act
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 05/28/2012 10:49 -0400
http://www.debka.com/article/22034/The-Al-Houla-atrocity-The-outcome-of-nuclear-diplomacy-with-Iran-
DEBKAfile Exclusive Analysis May 27, 2012, 12:14 PM (GMT+02:00)
http://www.infowars.com/syrian-opposition-officially-abandons-un-peace-plan/
As prospects for a preemptive strike on Iran remain ever present, the recent round of talks between the P5+1 and Iran in Baghdad on May 23rd, 2012 have resulted in a familiar stalemate. As a precondition for any deal to stop higher-grade uranium enrichment, Tehran requested immediate relief from economic sanctions as a show of reciprocity [1]. Iranian chief negotiator Saeed Jalili emphasized Tehran’s right to develop peaceful nuclear energy as a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, while the P5+1 refused to scale back economic sanctions, insisting Iran suspend its 20% uranium enrichment program [2]. As leaders in Tel Aviv assert that Israel may conduct military strikes against Iran before the US Presidential elections in November [2], Major General Hassan Firouzabadi of the Iranian Armed Forces reiterated Iran’s commitment to the full annihilation of the Zionist regime and the continual support of Palestinian autonomy [3]. Even if Tehran reaches an agreement with the IAEA, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak refused to rule out a military strike against Iranian facilities, demanding that Iran dismantle its uranium enrichment sites and use only imported fuel [4].
Given the fragile state of the European economy, the further implementation of financial sanctions on nations who fail to comply with the oil embargo on Iran is thoroughly unreasonable, with entirely negative implications for the European Union. Any further escalation of tensions with Iran would likely trigger inflated oil prices, which could further cripple the unstable economies of Greece and Portugal and potentially lead to those nations leaving the European Union. Despite Iranian Oil Minister Rostam Qassemi downplaying the negative effects of sanctions [22], inflation is soaring within Iran as the cost of food increases between 25% to 125%, with 60% of the population relying on cash subsidies handed out by Tehran [23]. Iran’s budget deficit for the 2011/2012 fiscal year is expected to be between $30 to $50 billion, as the Iranian rial continues to plunge after the imposition of the oil embargo, causing widespread panic buying of gold among the Iranian public [24].
As the United States and its allies offer unflinching support to armed opposition groups under cover of “democratic activism” in non-acquiescent countries in the region, any popular revolution in Iran would unquestionably be supported and used to pressure the government from within, even using the opportunity to launch an armed opposition insurrection. An articled published in The New Yorker by Seymour M. Hersh entitled, “Our Men in Iran?,” documents how members of Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK), an Iranian dissident group and US State Department-listed terrorist organization, were trained in communications, cryptography, small-unit tactics and weaponry by the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) at a base in Nevada starting in 2005 [31]. JSOC instructed MEK operatives on how to penetrate major Iranian communications systems, allowing the group to intercept telephone calls and text messages inside Iran for the purpose of sharing them with American intelligence. The group has been implicated in the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists [32] and the planting of the Stuxnet malware that sabotaged Iran’s nuclear facility in Natanz [33].
The revised Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations (March 2005) envisaged five scenarios where “the use of nuclear weapons might be requested,” namely, “to attack adversary installations including weapons of mass destruction, deep, hardened bunkers containing chemical or biological weapons, or the command and control infrastructure required for the adversary to execute a WMD attack against the United States or its friends and allies” and “to counter potentially overwhelming adversary conventional forces”. The doctrine further cites, “Responsible security planning requires preparation for threats that are possible, though perhaps unlikely today. The lessons of military history remain clear: unpredictable, irrational conflicts occur. Military forces must prepare to counter weapons and capabilities that exist in the near term even if no immediate likely scenarios for war are at hand. To maximize deterrence of WMD use, it is essential US forces prepare to use nuclear weapons effectively and that US forces are determined to employ nuclear weapons if necessary to prevent or retaliate against WMD use” [60].
http://www.infowars.com/phony-houla-massacre-how-media-manipulates-public-opinion-on-syria/
Phony ‘Houla Massacre’: How Media Manipulates Public Opinion For Regime Change in Syria
Intelligent skeptics should see through the media’s smoke screen in order to work out what is really going on in Syria
Patrick Henningsen
Infowars.com
May 28, 2012
Infowars.com
May 28, 2012
If you are still needing an academic tutorial on exactly how the mainstream media is able to generate a completely phony public consensus to support foreign intervention projects, you need look no further than the dangerous, fictional narrative currently being rolled out regarding Syria.
This past Saturday and Sunday morning, almost every major corporate mainstream newspaper and TV network in North America and in Europe ran with the average headline, “Massacre of the children as Syrian forces hit rebels”, giving hundreds of millions of readers and viewers to artificial impression that it was Syrian government forces – and not western-backed terrorist groups, who carried out a massacre on children and others days ago - even though, the true culprit of these attacks has not yet been determined – a fact which was only briefly mentioned later on in these very same media reports.
One of the UK best-selling weekend papers and most widely read online journals, Guardian media group’s The Observer, ran such a headline – one which shamelessly implied that the Syrian government carried out a massacre in Houla. This was used to shape public opinion in Europe, a reality which is later shaped for the North American market.
Corporate Journalism: The Art of Deception
It shouldn’t take a genius to see through this relentless western effort to takeover Syria, but not having learned their lesson from Libya, so many hard working and well educated westerners are bound to fall for it all over again.
Cui bono? Who benefits… from another civilian massacre? Clearly not the Syrian government. But western-backed terrorist groups who have been working to destabilize the country for over one year now, do clearly benefit.
Who would be the chief suspect for this latest massacre? How about the western-backed terrorists in Syria – the very same terrorist groups admitted to their own bombing campaign that killed many innocent people in Syria only weeks ago.
Important to add here also, that the latest child massacre in Syria has been reported as being “done with knives” – which doesn’t sound like a government attack to any intelligent reader.
Do not underestimate for one second just how pivotal the western corporate media is in advancing an agenda of global destabilization:
As we have seen used before in Syria and Libya, the alleged massacre in question is based entirely on unsubstantiated evidence, in this case its more uploaded ‘Youtube’ footage:
“Videos uploaded to the Internet and purporting to be from Houla show many dead and badly mutilated infants. Residents say some victims were killed with knives, while many more died from 18 hours of relentless shelling that left buildings wrecked and homes destroyed in a large residential area near the centre of town.”
Origins of these ‘Youtube video’ are still unknown, but the media machine and certain UN officials have already cited them as “evidence”. Also note that in the YouTube videos, many of the dead children appear to be shot in the heads with fire arms at close range, but this has not stopped certain ‘UN observers’ from accusing the Syrian government from killing children withtank shelling.
Mainstream Media 101
In order to shape consensus reality, first you need to frame the event. Here the story begins by laying soft blame on the Syrian government…
“Syria‘s fragile peace process is in shreds after what was claimed to be a regime-backed massacre…”
… and then proceeding to carefully cover themselves, so to speak, but retracting the allegations deeper into the article:
“Major General Robert Mood, head of the UN team in Syria, deplored the attack, which began at midday on Friday, as “indiscriminate and unforgivable” but did not say who had been to blame.”
Notice how the article itself states clearly that the persons responsible for the massacre is yet to be known, but The Observer has already framed the conclusion within the headline and in the beginning of the story, in order to fit a pre-determined conclusion. This conclusion happens to be directly in line with Washington and London’s foreign policy objective of regime change in Syria.
Take notes. Because this is how it’s done, time and time again – another clear example how large media outlets can effectively drive reality in the direction of their choosing, and this is why so many millions of public media consumers are left misinformed and dis informed, eventually leading to a marginal public endorsement of Washington, London and Tel Aviv’s interventionist foreign policy objectives.
Hours after this fake story was circulated in the GMT timezone, it made its way to EST, as theNew York Times picks up the ball and runs it down the field. Here the story is further refined to streamline it with regime change policy objectives, codifying reality within North American sector, claiming that:
“More than 90 people, including at least 32 children under the age of 10, were killed in a central Syrian village, top United Nations officials said Saturday, accusing the government of perpetrating the “indiscriminate” shelling of civilian neighborhoods.”
No real details are actually given to support this media-generated verdict, only that, “A United Nations statement said the observers confirmed that “artillery and tank shells were fired at a residential neighborhood.”
And finally, the Washington Post weighs in with their attempt to corner Russia and China on the issue, rounding out the artificial verdict today with their headline, “U.N. Security Council blames Syrian government for civilian massacre”, claiming that:
“The U.N. Security Council on Sunday blamed the Syrian government for most of the deaths in a massacre of 116 civilians in the village of Houla, issuing a unanimous statement condemning the killings that was supported by Syria’s staunch allies Russia and China.”
Shortly thereafter, the UN’s Ban Ki Moon and Save the Children charity weigh in with carefully-craft statements, but statements that are obviously framed and directed towards Syria’s Assad government, and not Gulf States, Washington and London-backed terrorist gangs currently operating under an all but official western mandate within Syria and from their NATO-sanctioned base over the border in southern Turkey. Reality is further shaped by the London Guardian’s Observer and others, with an official “international outcry”:
“The international community was united in its condemnation. UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon said the killings were a “flagrant violation of international law” while the White House called the violence acts of “unspeakable and inhuman brutality.” Arab League head Nabil Elaraby said the killings were a “horrific crime” and urged UN action.
Save the Children’s chief executive, Justin Forsyth, echoed calls for intervention. He said: “This indiscriminate killing must stop now. The world cannot sit back and allow this to happen. Children are suffering terribly in this conflict.”
Even the BBC have gone so far as to run 9 year old photographs from Iraq, and sell them as from this latest massacre of children in Syria. Any other foreign media outlet in the UK would have its broadcasting license pulled for such a propaganda stunt. In the face of such damning manipulation, why then would so many people still believe the mainstream media’s version of reality in countries like Syria?
But what is a more closer version of reality is this:
Western-backed terrorists, many of whom are al-Qaida, mostly hailing from outside of Syria, are fomenting civil war and carrying out a series of attacks on UN observers and civilians, in order to create the preferred western narrative that “Assad must go.”
Western readers should be under no illusion – your government operators are sanctioning civilian killing in places like Syria, and your corporate media are being used to place the blame on the west’s political enemy in the region – and therefore influence western public support for regime change.
After over one year of intervening through their own favored terrorist guerrilla proxy fighters and running arms into Syria – arms that are admittedly for going into the hands of western-backed al-Qaida groups there, the west has not yet succeeded in toppling the Assad government and installing a new puppet regime, as they did by using NATO military force in Libya last autumn. But western project managers like Hillary Clinton and William Hague have not given up, and if their corporate media outlets are allowed to determine their version reality in Syria, they will eventually get their “humanitarian intervention”, and the country will slowly be destroyed from within. Then regime change will happen.
It’s as simple as that.
The Syrian people are the ones who will eventually lose if Washington, London, Tel Aviv and the Gulf States succeed in destroying that country, as they have done in Libya and Iraq.
When this is done, then they will move on to destabilize Lebanon in order to unseat and neutralize Hezbollah.
After that, the door to attack Iran will be wide open.
There’s your World War Three in earnest.
and....
“Videos uploaded to the Internet and purporting to be from Houla show many dead and badly mutilated infants. Residents say some victims were killed with knives, while many more died from 18 hours of relentless shelling that left buildings wrecked and homes destroyed in a large residential area near the centre of town.”
“Syria‘s fragile peace process is in shreds after what was claimed to be a regime-backed massacre…”
“Major General Robert Mood, head of the UN team in Syria, deplored the attack, which began at midday on Friday, as “indiscriminate and unforgivable” but did not say who had been to blame.”
Hours after this fake story was circulated in the GMT timezone, it made its way to EST, as theNew York Times picks up the ball and runs it down the field. Here the story is further refined to streamline it with regime change policy objectives, codifying reality within North American sector, claiming that:
“More than 90 people, including at least 32 children under the age of 10, were killed in a central Syrian village, top United Nations officials said Saturday, accusing the government of perpetrating the “indiscriminate” shelling of civilian neighborhoods.”
No real details are actually given to support this media-generated verdict, only that, “A United Nations statement said the observers confirmed that “artillery and tank shells were fired at a residential neighborhood.”
And finally, the Washington Post weighs in with their attempt to corner Russia and China on the issue, rounding out the artificial verdict today with their headline, “U.N. Security Council blames Syrian government for civilian massacre”, claiming that:
“The U.N. Security Council on Sunday blamed the Syrian government for most of the deaths in a massacre of 116 civilians in the village of Houla, issuing a unanimous statement condemning the killings that was supported by Syria’s staunch allies Russia and China.”
Shortly thereafter, the UN’s Ban Ki Moon and Save the Children charity weigh in with carefully-craft statements, but statements that are obviously framed and directed towards Syria’s Assad government, and not Gulf States, Washington and London-backed terrorist gangs currently operating under an all but official western mandate within Syria and from their NATO-sanctioned base over the border in southern Turkey. Reality is further shaped by the London Guardian’s Observer and others, with an official “international outcry”:
“The international community was united in its condemnation. UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon said the killings were a “flagrant violation of international law” while the White House called the violence acts of “unspeakable and inhuman brutality.” Arab League head Nabil Elaraby said the killings were a “horrific crime” and urged UN action.Save the Children’s chief executive, Justin Forsyth, echoed calls for intervention. He said: “This indiscriminate killing must stop now. The world cannot sit back and allow this to happen. Children are suffering terribly in this conflict.”Even the BBC have gone so far as to run 9 year old photographs from Iraq, and sell them as from this latest massacre of children in Syria. Any other foreign media outlet in the UK would have its broadcasting license pulled for such a propaganda stunt. In the face of such damning manipulation, why then would so many people still believe the mainstream media’s version of reality in countries like Syria?But what is a more closer version of reality is this:
Western-backed terrorists, many of whom are al-Qaida, mostly hailing from outside of Syria, are fomenting civil war and carrying out a series of attacks on UN observers and civilians, in order to create the preferred western narrative that “Assad must go.”
Western readers should be under no illusion – your government operators are sanctioning civilian killing in places like Syria, and your corporate media are being used to place the blame on the west’s political enemy in the region – and therefore influence western public support for regime change.
After over one year of intervening through their own favored terrorist guerrilla proxy fighters and running arms into Syria – arms that are admittedly for going into the hands of western-backed al-Qaida groups there, the west has not yet succeeded in toppling the Assad government and installing a new puppet regime, as they did by using NATO military force in Libya last autumn. But western project managers like Hillary Clinton and William Hague have not given up, and if their corporate media outlets are allowed to determine their version reality in Syria, they will eventually get their “humanitarian intervention”, and the country will slowly be destroyed from within. Then regime change will happen.
It’s as simple as that.
The Syrian people are the ones who will eventually lose if Washington, London, Tel Aviv and the Gulf States succeed in destroying that country, as they have done in Libya and Iraq.
When this is done, then they will move on to destabilize Lebanon in order to unseat and neutralize Hezbollah.
After that, the door to attack Iran will be wide open.
There’s your World War Three in earnest.
and....
US-Arab exercise drills Iran landing. Syrian rebels obtain German machine guns
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report May 28, 2012, 5:59 PM (GMT+02:00)
US Marine craft drill off Aqaba
The US-Arab Eager Lion 2012 exercise ends Wednesday, May 30, after 12,000 mostly American as well as Saudi, Jordanian, Qatari and UAE special forces troops staged three weeks of joint maneuvers in Jordan.
In the marine section, DEBKAfile’s military sources report, around 3,000 US, Jordanian and Saudi special forces troops of three battalions practiced landings on Jordanian beaches and the rapid seizure of fortified mountain bases and command posts on Jordanian terrain resembling the three islands commanding the Strait of Hormuz where the Revolutionary Guards have established marine bases and other parts of Iran.
The mountains behind Aqaba port soar to 6,000 ft.
Taking part were the US 2nd Reconnaissance Battalion, Maritime Raid Force, the 24th Maritime Expeditionary Unit, the Jordanian 77th Reconnaissance Battalion and Saudi special marine forces aboard landing craft.
Their command post was set up aboard the new USS New York amphibious transport dock, which was sent to the Red Sea to boost American strength in the region with 700 marines aboard, landing craft and helicopters for dropping troops opposite land targets.The command vessel and the exercise were clearly visible to observers from the neighboring Israeli port and resort town of Eilat.
Taking part were the US 2nd Reconnaissance Battalion, Maritime Raid Force, the 24th Maritime Expeditionary Unit, the Jordanian 77th Reconnaissance Battalion and Saudi special marine forces aboard landing craft.
Their command post was set up aboard the new USS New York amphibious transport dock, which was sent to the Red Sea to boost American strength in the region with 700 marines aboard, landing craft and helicopters for dropping troops opposite land targets.The command vessel and the exercise were clearly visible to observers from the neighboring Israeli port and resort town of Eilat.
In the ground section of Eager Lion 2012, large scale US and Arab special forces carried out practice operations backed by air and armored strength including assault helicopters in northern Jordan near the Syrian border.
DEBKAfile’s military sources report that Gen. James Mattis, head of the US Central Command, secretly visited both sections of the exercise. If President Barack Obama orders an attack on Syria or Iran, he will be in command.
Our intelligence sources in Washington report that, Saturday, May 26, the president turned down Gen. Mattis’s application for a third US aircraft carrier and strike force to join the USS Abraham Lincoln and USS Enterprise deployed in the Persian Gulf. Obama decided not to raise military tensions with Iran so long as Tehran is ready to keep negotiations with the six world powers going. Should they break down, he would likely reconsider.
Meanwhile, Eager Lion 2012 is an important adjunct to international intervention in the Arab Revolt and preparations for war with Iran.
Last Thursday, May 24, a Russian arms ship, the Professor Katsman, was detected approaching the Syrian port of Tartus. Although the crew shut down communications systems and crept forward in silence, DEBKAfile’s intelligence sources discovered the vessel dropping anchor in the Syrian port Friday. Military equipment was then unloaded behind tarpaulin screens and transferred to waiting Syrian military truck convoys.
DEBKAfile’s military sources report that Gen. James Mattis, head of the US Central Command, secretly visited both sections of the exercise. If President Barack Obama orders an attack on Syria or Iran, he will be in command.
Our intelligence sources in Washington report that, Saturday, May 26, the president turned down Gen. Mattis’s application for a third US aircraft carrier and strike force to join the USS Abraham Lincoln and USS Enterprise deployed in the Persian Gulf. Obama decided not to raise military tensions with Iran so long as Tehran is ready to keep negotiations with the six world powers going. Should they break down, he would likely reconsider.
Meanwhile, Eager Lion 2012 is an important adjunct to international intervention in the Arab Revolt and preparations for war with Iran.
Last Thursday, May 24, a Russian arms ship, the Professor Katsman, was detected approaching the Syrian port of Tartus. Although the crew shut down communications systems and crept forward in silence, DEBKAfile’s intelligence sources discovered the vessel dropping anchor in the Syrian port Friday. Military equipment was then unloaded behind tarpaulin screens and transferred to waiting Syrian military truck convoys.
Our sources identified the cargo delivered as consisting of large quantities of artillery and tank shells as well as spare parts for tanks.
The North Korean arms ships Odai is also reported on its way to Tartus with hardware for the Syrian army.
The North Korean arms ships Odai is also reported on its way to Tartus with hardware for the Syrian army.
Our military sources report at the same time that Syrian rebels have started using German HK MG4 machine guns in their attacks on Syrian military targets. These weapons are in service with the German Bundeswher. It is the first time German military hardware has been seen in the Middle East in the 67 years since World War II ended. It is not known how the Syrian rebels procured the guns and who is supplying them with ammo.
and....
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-national-attack-authorization-act
Guest Post: The National Attack Authorization Act?
- Brazil
- Dennis Kucinich
- Fail
- Guest Post
- Iran
- Iraq
- Japan
- Kucinich
- Middle East
- President Obama
- Robert Gates
- Ron Paul
Submitted by John Aziz of Azizonomics
The National Attack Authorization Act?
We all know that the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) signed by President Obama on New Year’s Eve contained a now-struck-down provision to authorise the indefinite detention of American citizens on US soil.
But did you know that the NDAA also paves the way for war with Iran?
From Dennis Kucinich:
Section (6) rejects any United States policy that would rely on efforts to contain a nuclear weapons-capable Iran. Section (7) urges the President to reaffirm the unacceptability of an Iran with nuclear-weapons capability and opposition to any policy that would rely on containment as an option in response to Iranian enrichment.
This language represents a significant shift in U.S. policy and would guarantee that talks with Iran, currently scheduled for May 23, would fail. Current U.S. policy is that Iran cannot acquire nuclear weapons. Instead, H. Res. 568 draws the “redline” for military action at Iran achieving a nuclear weapons “capability,” a nebulous and undefined term that could include a civilian nuclear program. Indeed, it is likely that a negotiated deal to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran and to prevent war would provide for Iranian enrichment for peaceful purposes under the framework of the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty with strict safeguards and inspections. This language makes such a negotiated solution impossible.
At the same time, the language lowers the threshold for attacking Iran. Countries with nuclear weapons “capability” could include many other countries like Japan or Brazil.It is an unrealistic threshold.The Former Chief of Staff of Secretary of State Colin Powell has stated that this resolution “reads like the same sheet of music that got us into the Iraq war.”
The notion of a “nuclear weapons capability” seems like a dangerously low standard. Let us not forget that Mossad, the CIA and the IAEA agree that Iran does not have a bomb, is not building one, has no plans to build one.
But the bill clearly spells out its intent:
SEC. 1222. UNITED STATES MILITARY PREPAREDNESS IN THE MIDDLE EAST.
Section 2 (A) pre-positioning sufficient supplies of aircraft, munitions, fuel, and other materials for both air- and sea-based missions at key forward locations in the Middle East and Indian Ocean;(B) maintaining sufficient naval assets in the region necessary to signal United States resolve and to bolster United States capabilities to launch a sustained sea and air campaign against a range of Iranian nuclear and military targets, to protect seaborne shipping, and to deny Iranian retaliation against United States interests in the region;(D) conducting naval fleet exercises similar to the United States Fifth Fleet’s major exercise in the region in March 2007 to demonstrate ability to keep the Strait of Hormuz open and to counter the use of anti-ship missiles and swarming high-speed boats.
As Kucinch notes:
This is an authorization for the use of military force against Iran. It ignores the warnings of both current and former U.S. top military brass who have spoken in opposition to the use of military force against Iran, including former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and current Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. A February 2012 poll demonstrated that less than 20% of the Israeli public supports an Israeli strike on Iran if approved by the United States. Congress must avoid the same mistakes it made in the Iraq war and reject any language that can be construed as authorizing war against Iran.It seems like the framers of the bill are exceptionally keen on striking Iran as quickly as possible. Maybe they are receiving lots of money from defence contractors?
Unsurprisingly, the biggest Congressional recipient of donations from defence contractors was Howard “Buck” McKeon, the chairman of the armed services committee who also happens to be the sponsor of the NDAA:
The fact that Ron Paul is the number two recipient is a sign that not all defence contractors are keen to hit Iran. But some are.
Still, even though the bill hints very strongly toward it, it doesn’t mean that it is going to happen. Congressmen might be hungry for a war but the military — already overstretched — isn’t. Admiral Fallon wasreportedly the force that kept Bush from hitting Iran, and it would not be surprising to see the Pentagon put up fierce opposition to a future war with Iran. It would be a long, expensive war, with the potential of massive negative side-effects, like dragging in other regional powers, disrupting global trade, and squeezing the US economy by spiking the oil price.
and....
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/05/25/150231/iran-nuclear-talks-a-complete.html
Iran nuclear talks a 'complete failure,' says Iranian diplomat
Scott Peterson | Christian Science Monitor
BAGHDAD — After two days of withering and sometimes combative nuclear talks, Iran and six world powers put a positive spin on the outcome.
Both Iran and the so-called P5+1 group of world powers spoke of "some common ground" – most importantly a willingness by Iran to address its sensitive 20 percent uranium enrichment program, which is technically not far from weapons grade – that will drive the next round of talks set for mid-June in Moscow.
Yet even the official statements pointed toward a chasm of mismatched expectations that has only widened in Baghdad, in Iran's view at least.
The setback risks future deadlock that could trigger another Mideast war: Israel has threatened military strikes against Iran's nuclear program, if it is not verifiably limited to peaceful purposes.
"I think it was a complete failure, in terms of content," says an Iranian diplomat inside the talks, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
"The more they talk, the worse it gets," said the diplomat about one of the final sessions. "The atmosphere is like Baghdad's weather," a reference to the sandstorm that swept across the Iraqi capital yesterday, closing the airport.
WESTERN DEMANDS TOO FAR BEYOND IRAN'S RED LINES
Behind the scenes, diplomats from all sides say the P5+1's initial demands were so far beyond Iran's oft-stated red lines – requiring a halt to all uranium enrichment including the lowest levels, for example, and shutting down Iran's deeply buried, UN-inspected enrichment site at Fordow – that Iran barely mentioned its top priority of relief from crippling sanctions, aware that it would get no traction.
The disconnect was so severe that negotiators spent much of the unplanned second day of talks trying to craft a statement acceptable to Iran.
Indeed, Catherine Ashton, the European foreign policy chief leading talks for the P5+1 (the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany), in the statement described "very intense" discussions, and noted that "significant differences remain."
Likewise, Saeed Jalili, Iran's chief negotiator and secretary of its Supreme National Security Council, told a press conference that "talks were intensive and long," and "left unfinished."
Iranian flexibility on its 20 percent enriched uranium would depend on the P5+1 recognizing what Iran considers its "undeniable right" to enrich uranium, Mr. Jalili said.
That was not part of the P5+1 offer put forward in the first session in Baghdad. A senior US official said after the talks that recognizing such a right is "obviously not something we are prepared to do."
Iran would not bow to pressure, from sanctions or negotiators, Jalili told the Monitor in an interview after the talks.
He said the goodwill created since the first round in April, which broke a 15-month diplomatic dry spell, has been jeopardized by "approaches that were really destructive" – a reference to a unanimous Senate vote on Monday to tighten sanctions, and a late-April executive order signed by President Obama to target cyber oppressors in Iran (and Syria)."To form this pathway to cooperation, they should avoid wrong attitude[s] and a destructive strategy" of more sanctions, Jalili told the Monitor. The two-track strategy led by the US and Europe grates on Iran as "illogically" seeking to both engage Iran while increasing pressure to compel Iranian compliance.
"The pressure strategy is over; it is outdated," said Jalili. "We think there are bases for cooperation, and we can find those bases of cooperation."
The senior American official, however, said the sanctions – including tougher measures like a European oil embargo coming into effect by July 1 – are key because they "increase leverage" of the P5+1 – and signaled they could be ratcheted up further. "Maximum pressure is not yet being felt in Iran," the official added.
IRANIANS: PACKAGE UNBALANCED, INFLUENCED BY ISRAEL
Those steps designed to put pressure on Tehran were portrayed in Iran as proof that the US was not serious about talking.
Iranian officials and media presented the P5+1 proposal as unbalanced, and pointed out that the most egregious demands, in their view – that Iran halt all uranium enrichment, and shut down Fordow – were mirrored those voiced by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel.
Israel is the only nation in the Middle East with a nuclear arsenal, but it is not subject to UN inspection, nor is it a signatory like Iran of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Its leadership calls Iran's program an "existential threat" that must be eliminated.
"I would have expected nothing but the Iranians to say that the [P5+1] package was unbalanced," the senior US official said earlier. "This is a negotiation: We each want to get the most and give the least. That's how negotiations begin."
UN RESOLUTIONS REQUIRE IRAN TO SUSPEND ENRICHMENT
Iran is required by a number of UN Security Council resolutions to suspend all enrichment, until it clears up questions about possible weapons-related work.
But with 9,000 centrifuges installed in Iran and a growing stockpile of low-enriched uranium, many experts believe that demanding full stoppage is a deal breaker. Iran's supreme religious leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei – who will make any final decision on P5+1 deal – says nuclear weapons are a "sin" and unIslamic, and officials insist they only want a civilian nuclear program for energy and medical research.
At the Baghdad talks this week, Iran presented its own counterproposals, which included non-nuclear issues such as civil unrest in Syria and Bahrain, and even counter-narcotics.
But it was the "illogic" of the dual-track position that the Iranian team considers a "miscalculation" that will hinder progress, says the Iranian diplomat.
"Jalili told the [P5+1]: 'You are repeating the same mistakes,'" said the Iranian diplomat. "He believes these [added pressures] are destructive to the talks, and should be stopped."
IRANIAN NEGOTIATOR TO SHIITE SHRINES; US NEGOTIATOR TO ISRAEL
The final statement in Baghdad reaffirmed the magic words from the Istanbul meeting that talks would be based on a "step by step approach and reciprocity."
Yet while the Iranians say they expected simultaneous steps of equal value, the other side made clear it expected Iran to take critical steps for some incentives, but with easing of sanctions only a distant prospect.
The original draft made no mention of Iran's right to enrich.
"They provided a draft, wishing that they include only the 20 percent," says the Iranian diplomat. It "was furiously responded to by Jalili, [who said] if they read this statement [publicly], we're going to state that the whole story was a failure, a fiasco, and he was completely angry."'
After a P5+1 huddle, another plenary session was agreed. When the talks finally ended after dark yesterday, Ms. Ashton spoke to the press for less than eight minutes, before most of the P5+1 delegations raced for the airport.
Within hours, Jalili and the Iranian team were driving south toward the Shiite holy shrine cities of Karbala and Najaf. Jalili had also visited a Baghdad shrine twice this week to pray.
And today, the top American negotiator, US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman, traveled to Israel, to reassure the Jewish state that its security was a top US concern.
and.....
http://www.debka.com/article/22034/The-Al-Houla-atrocity-The-outcome-of-nuclear-diplomacy-with-Iran-
The Al Houla atrocity: The outcome of nuclear diplomacy with Iran
DEBKAfile Exclusive Analysis May 27, 2012, 12:14 PM (GMT+02:00)
Tags: Iran nuclear 
Barack Obama Bashar Assad Syrian casualties Ayatollah Ali Khamenei Vladimir Putin Binyamin Netanyahu
Barack Obama Bashar Assad Syrian casualties Ayatollah Ali Khamenei Vladimir Putin Binyamin Netanyahu
Assad's latest massacre at al-Houla
The wanton slaughter by Syrian forces of 92 confirmed victims, 32 of them children under ten, at the Homs village of Al-Houla Friday, May 25, was the most horrifying atrocity in the Middle East this week, but not the only one: In Sanaa, six days ago, al Qaeda’s suicide bombers, having penetrated Yemeni military ranks, detonated two tons of explosives at a parade rehearsal killing more than 100 soldiers and civilians and injuring 400.
Yet, according to the New York Times, after 15 months of bloodshed, President Barack Obama is working on the Yemenbi model for a plan to push Bashar Assad out of office, while “leaving remnants of his government in place. The Yemeni model replaced President Ali Abdullah in Sanaa with his vice president Abdu Rabbu Mansour Hadi.
Whereas US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton condemned Assad and his “cronies” for the al-Houla massacre, the “Yemen plan” would leave in place those very “cronies,” including Assad’s close relatives, who are responsible for massacres not only in al-Houla, but also in Homs, Hama, Idlib and Deraa, to name a few.
According to the NYT, when Obama tested the idea with Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev at the Group-of-8 summit in Camp David last Saturday, May 19, the Russian prime minister raised the example of “Mubarak in a cage,” referring to Mubarak’s court appearance at his trial. Obama then “countered with Yemen, and the indication was, yes, this was something we could talk about.”
This scrap of dialogue lifted the veil from a key aspect of Obama’s broader Middle East program and the role he has assigned Moscow for carrying it through. This role was first revealed exclusively by DEBKA-Net-Weekly 542 of May 25 which reported that the US president is acting to bring the Russians into a partnership for securing deals on the Iranian nuclear program and the Syrian crisis.So far, his venture has had two results:
Yet, according to the New York Times, after 15 months of bloodshed, President Barack Obama is working on the Yemenbi model for a plan to push Bashar Assad out of office, while “leaving remnants of his government in place. The Yemeni model replaced President Ali Abdullah in Sanaa with his vice president Abdu Rabbu Mansour Hadi.
Whereas US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton condemned Assad and his “cronies” for the al-Houla massacre, the “Yemen plan” would leave in place those very “cronies,” including Assad’s close relatives, who are responsible for massacres not only in al-Houla, but also in Homs, Hama, Idlib and Deraa, to name a few.
According to the NYT, when Obama tested the idea with Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev at the Group-of-8 summit in Camp David last Saturday, May 19, the Russian prime minister raised the example of “Mubarak in a cage,” referring to Mubarak’s court appearance at his trial. Obama then “countered with Yemen, and the indication was, yes, this was something we could talk about.”
This scrap of dialogue lifted the veil from a key aspect of Obama’s broader Middle East program and the role he has assigned Moscow for carrying it through. This role was first revealed exclusively by DEBKA-Net-Weekly 542 of May 25 which reported that the US president is acting to bring the Russians into a partnership for securing deals on the Iranian nuclear program and the Syrian crisis.So far, his venture has had two results:
1. The Iranian nuclear impasse and the outcome of the Syrian civil war have been more tightly integrated than ever before.
2. Any deal reached by the US, Russia and Iran on the two issues would have to entail a carving-up of Middle East influence among those three powers.
As for Israel’s role in the ongoing bargaining, we also disclosed in DEBKAfile of May 19 thatIsrael’s Binyamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak had agreed to stand back for Barack Obama to put his interim deal with Iran to the test. Despite their reservations, they decided to go along with it after receiving assurances from the White House that Iranian violations would result in the immediate termination of negotiations and bring military action forward as the sole remaining option for stopping a nuclear Iran.
2. Any deal reached by the US, Russia and Iran on the two issues would have to entail a carving-up of Middle East influence among those three powers.
As for Israel’s role in the ongoing bargaining, we also disclosed in DEBKAfile of May 19 thatIsrael’s Binyamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak had agreed to stand back for Barack Obama to put his interim deal with Iran to the test. Despite their reservations, they decided to go along with it after receiving assurances from the White House that Iranian violations would result in the immediate termination of negotiations and bring military action forward as the sole remaining option for stopping a nuclear Iran.
The US president promised to put his accord with Israel before the G-8 summit. And he did.
But for now there is no deal although Israel, in effect, gave Obama six months’ grace to explore his diplomatic initiative with Vladimir Putin and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei before turning back to the military option.
But as the days pass, major hurdles are piling up in the path of what some observers hail as Obama’s “Grand Bargain,” and others his “Grand Failure:” The Six-power talks with Iran have failed to persuade the ayatollahs to give up uranium enrichment up to weapons-grade; the world wants actions not words to halt the brutal massacres in Syria; rising bloodshed in Yemen continues to cripple the country. Obama’s hopes of a crisis-free six months for electioneering in peace look more and more like pipe-dreams.
The bargaining with Tehran is likely to stay stalled because Iran’s leaders take Obama’s deal with Israel as a six-month respite from a military threat. So why should they hurry in May or even June to reach a compromise with America on its demand to stop 20 percent uranium enrichment?
Bashar Assad and his army chiefs likewise feel US hands are tied by Obama's hopes of a breakthrough with Iran and they can safely carry on with their “unspeakable crimes” for the next six months under the Iranian-Russian umbrella. Words however strong will not discourage him from sending tanks to crush every last opponent and their children.
But for now there is no deal although Israel, in effect, gave Obama six months’ grace to explore his diplomatic initiative with Vladimir Putin and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei before turning back to the military option.
But as the days pass, major hurdles are piling up in the path of what some observers hail as Obama’s “Grand Bargain,” and others his “Grand Failure:” The Six-power talks with Iran have failed to persuade the ayatollahs to give up uranium enrichment up to weapons-grade; the world wants actions not words to halt the brutal massacres in Syria; rising bloodshed in Yemen continues to cripple the country. Obama’s hopes of a crisis-free six months for electioneering in peace look more and more like pipe-dreams.
The bargaining with Tehran is likely to stay stalled because Iran’s leaders take Obama’s deal with Israel as a six-month respite from a military threat. So why should they hurry in May or even June to reach a compromise with America on its demand to stop 20 percent uranium enrichment?
Bashar Assad and his army chiefs likewise feel US hands are tied by Obama's hopes of a breakthrough with Iran and they can safely carry on with their “unspeakable crimes” for the next six months under the Iranian-Russian umbrella. Words however strong will not discourage him from sending tanks to crush every last opponent and their children.
And Israel, seeing the US president lurching from one bargaining position to another to keep his initiative afloat, shifts uncertainly in and out of its unwritten commitment to withhold military action against Iran until November.
None of the parties involved in granting Obama his six-month grace period, whether Vladimir Putin, Ali Khamenei, Binyamin Netanyahu or Bashar Assad, can be sure that he will in fact be returned to the Whie House in November. And even if he is, how much will be left of his Grand Bargain.
http://www.infowars.com/syrian-opposition-officially-abandons-un-peace-plan/
Syrian Opposition Officially Abandons UN Peace Plan
Tony Cartalucci
Infowars.com
May 27, 2012
Infowars.com
May 27, 2012
Editor’s Note: It is curious that the West is so seemingly outraged by the “massacre” in Houla Syria when NATO has been committing such atrocities along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border for now well over a decade. Hundreds of civilians have been murdered by US drone attacks (here, here, here, and here) with the only difference seeming to be the manner in which these atrocities are reported – US mass-murder downplayed, obfuscated and buried under terms like “suspected militants” while any death in Syria, regardless of evidence is boldly pronounced as the work of the Syrian government.
One can only imagine the international outcry should the Syrian government have declared it was abandoning the UN-brokered “cease-fire” and was resolved to dealing with its opponents in the “only language they understand, violence.” However, the Syrian government has not abandoned the ceasefire, and has played host to hundreds of UN monitors. Instead, it is the opposition making such claims – claims that have gone unchallenged by the so-called “international community.”
Since the beginning of the UN mission led by Kofi Annan, an open conspirator with the very foreign-interests on record intentionally seeking to destabilize and overthrow the Syrian government, the West has berated Syria for violating the ceasefire, even as they openly armed and encouraged the rebels to carry on their campaign of violence. Reuters reported at one pointthat the Syrian rebels were overtly shifting to indiscriminate terrorist bombings during this “ceasefire,” which have claimed scores of lives, and left hundreds maimed, mostly civilians. Again, the UN and the “international community” gave only the vaguest condemnations, never mentioning or addressing the opposition directly. These bombs have even been directed at the UN monitors themselves, with the West, France specifically, then inexplicably condemning the Syrian government for not doing enough to provide security.
It is assumed that the Syrian government was expected to allow entire cities to be overrun by demonstrative sectarian violence, targeting Alawites, Christians, Druze, and Kurds, as well as any, including Sunnis, who were suspected of supporting the ruling government. It is imagined that had the government even conceded to allowing this to pass, it would be paradoxically accused of then not maintaining security and order under the “responsibility to protect,” or “R2P” doctrine.
It is clear that both the UN and NATO have determined that regime change will take place, and the violence unfolding in Syria will be used as a tool, regardless of the reality on the ground, as a means of accomplishing this predetermined goal. The West declared the UN mission a failure before the first UN monitor stepped foot in Syria, using its massive media machine to convince the world that only force, either through terrorist proxies like the “Free Syrian Army,” or a direct military intervention by NATO itself, would solve the unrest.
Clearly, looking at Libya, NATO’s previous intervention, this too is an obvious fabrication.
The UN is dangerously flirting with losing all credibility permanently by failing to condemn the Syrian opposition’s open discarding of the UN’s own peace plan, regardless of the excuse. The excuse the opposition is using is an alleged “massacre” in Houla Syria, near Homs, where the Western media and the UN have already repeatedly backpedaled after claiming government troops shelled 90 people, or “nearly a hundred” including many children to death, only to retract these reports and admit the majority of the victims were killed by death squads, and reducing the body count to 85. The Western media has also conceded that Syrian government troops were not responsible for these deaths, but that it was the work of what they call “pro-regime thugs.” Despite this shifting reality, the resolve to punish the government regardless remains.
Clearly sensationalized reporting was done in coordination with the “Free Syrian Army’s” declaration of abandoning the peace plan for maximum effect. And as more evidence comes out of Houla after numerous false reports, it is becoming even more nebulous as to who is actually responsible, with many of the corpses bearing slashed throats, a tactic generally employed by Al Qaeda terrorists, known to be operating not only in the area, but side-by-side with the Free Syrian Army, against Syrian troops.
Unlike in Libya, where the pace of military intervention moved faster than the public’s awareness of the true nature of the Libyan rebels, that they were indeed violent, listed terrorist organizations committing horrific atrocities, the Syrian violence has dragged on allowing independent observers to see the full scope of the “Free Syrian Army” with even Western agencies and the UN itself having to concede they are guilty of an increasing array of atrocities and utilizing terrorist tactics to achieve what appear to be sectarian, not “democratic” objectives.
Despite this, the UN is still playing along with Western ambitions to continue the narrative, even as the stage lies in ruins. It is left to Syria, its allies, and all nations interested in world peace, to condemn vocally the rebels for abandoning a ceasefire they never observed to begin with, and to recognize that any further aid, weapons, or support for such an opposition is the height of irresponsibility, sure to provoke, not prevent further bloodshed, and a crime against world peace.
and......
http://www.infowars.com/laying-the-foundations-for-preemptive-nuclear-war-against-iran/
Laying the Foundations for Preemptive Nuclear War Against Iran
Nile Bowie
Infowars.com
May 27,2012
Infowars.com
May 27,2012
As prospects for a preemptive strike on Iran remain ever present, the recent round of talks between the P5+1 and Iran in Baghdad on May 23rd, 2012 have resulted in a familiar stalemate. As a precondition for any deal to stop higher-grade uranium enrichment, Tehran requested immediate relief from economic sanctions as a show of reciprocity [1]. Iranian chief negotiator Saeed Jalili emphasized Tehran’s right to develop peaceful nuclear energy as a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, while the P5+1 refused to scale back economic sanctions, insisting Iran suspend its 20% uranium enrichment program [2]. As leaders in Tel Aviv assert that Israel may conduct military strikes against Iran before the US Presidential elections in November [2], Major General Hassan Firouzabadi of the Iranian Armed Forces reiterated Iran’s commitment to the full annihilation of the Zionist regime and the continual support of Palestinian autonomy [3]. Even if Tehran reaches an agreement with the IAEA, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak refused to rule out a military strike against Iranian facilities, demanding that Iran dismantle its uranium enrichment sites and use only imported fuel [4].
Although the recent conference in Baghdad failed to meet the expectations of its participants, Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany have agreed to hold another round of talks in Moscow on June 18th [5]. As a further indication of division between P5+1 participants, Germany has pledged to work toward a political and diplomatic solution to Iran’s nuclear energy issues by providing Tehran with technical assistance in developing a peaceful nuclear program [6], while the US Senate recently approved a new round of sanctions against Iran aimed at any country or company that provides technology or resources to develop Tehran’s oil and uranium resources [7]. The new legislation targets Iran’s national oil and tanker firms and widens sanctions on Iran’s energy sector to any international joint venture where Tehran is a substantial partner or investor. As the US continually pressures Beijing to join its oil embargo, the Chinese Foreign Ministry remains vocally opposed to the new package of economic sanctions against Iran [8].
Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich blasted the US for imposing new unilateral sanctions against Iran, describing the move as an irrational measure intended to the harm pace of negotiations [9]. India has remained adamant against expanding sanctions on Iran [10], as New Delhi and Tehran agree to increase annual bilateral trade two thirds to $25 billion by 2015, confirming their intent to bypass US sanctions by making payments for a significant portion of its oil purchases from Iran in rupees [11]. As further cooperation between the US and the Persian Gulf monarchies of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) remains evident through their unanimous support of Syria’s armed opposition, Saudi Arabia remains a major beneficiary under the continued imposition of sanctions on Tehran from Washington. Japan and South Korea once accounted for 26% of Iran’s oil exports [12], now both Seoul [13] and Tokyo [14] have sought stable supplies of crude oil from Saudi Arabia. As South Africa turns to Saudi Arabia after halting business with Iran [15], the kingdom’s crude output is at a thirty-year high [16], as shipments to the United States quietly rise to 25% [17].
As a result of sanctions on Iran, Christine Lagarde of the International Monetary Fund predicts that oil prices could spike as much as 30% and hover around $160 per barrel if Iran’s crude oil exports fell sharply [18]. As Iranian production hits a ten-year low as of March 2012, industry-wide fears of a recession-fueled fall in demand have prompted the reduction of total world oil production through the imposition of embargoes on Iranian oil; higher prices triggered by a supply squeeze from the sanctions work to further benefit international oil companies and producers like Saudi Arabia [19]. In March 2012, the US granted Japan and 10 EU nations a six-month reprieve to gradually cut their imports of Iranian oil, lest they be subjected to their own financial sanctions and cut off from the US financial system [20]. Under the 2012 US National Defense Authorization Act, Barack Obama can impose financial sanctions on foreign banks that carry out financial transactions with Iran’s central bank “for the purchase of petroleum or petroleum products from Iran” [21].
Given the fragile state of the European economy, the further implementation of financial sanctions on nations who fail to comply with the oil embargo on Iran is thoroughly unreasonable, with entirely negative implications for the European Union. Any further escalation of tensions with Iran would likely trigger inflated oil prices, which could further cripple the unstable economies of Greece and Portugal and potentially lead to those nations leaving the European Union. Despite Iranian Oil Minister Rostam Qassemi downplaying the negative effects of sanctions [22], inflation is soaring within Iran as the cost of food increases between 25% to 125%, with 60% of the population relying on cash subsidies handed out by Tehran [23]. Iran’s budget deficit for the 2011/2012 fiscal year is expected to be between $30 to $50 billion, as the Iranian rial continues to plunge after the imposition of the oil embargo, causing widespread panic buying of gold among the Iranian public [24].
As commodity prices in Iran continue to skyrocket, former Mossad director Efraim Halevy remarked, “The rial is going down, it’s gone down by over 50 percent. It’s almost impossible to describe the damage done,” while former Israeli foreign minister Shlomo Ben-Ami forewarns, “When a national currency loses 50% of its value in a matter of weeks, economic collapse is at hand.” [25][26]. As Iran struggled to replace it’s client base following the imposition of US-led economic sanctions, Israeli Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz spoke before the Israeli cabinet predicting the collapse of the Iranian economy [27]. Haaretz reports the remarks of an unnamed senior official in the Israeli Foreign Ministry, “These aren’t sanctions against Iran. Instead, they are sanctions imposed by the West to curb Israel’s attack plans, had Israel not spoken out about its intention to attack, none of this would be happening. The Iranians are frightened. You have to understand what’s going on there in stores; citizens grab food off the shelves because they are worried about an impending attack. Inflation is soaring and the currency has lost half its value. All this attests to fear.” [28]
As the black market in Iran expands amid an increasing lack of public confidence in the rial, the role of the state is indirectly strengthened because smuggling imports requires strong connections within the regime, leaving the poor and lower middle class susceptible to poverty while the officials being targeted by sanctions themselves benefit from the embargo [29]. The fact that Obama administration chose to preemptively impose sanctions on Iran before the P5+1 meeting in Baghdad even took place indicates that the objective of US-Israeli policy toward Iran seeks not mutual agreement and reconciliation, but the further perpetuation of conflict to ensure that the question of Iran’s nuclear energy issue remains unsolved. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said the scope for sanctions over Iran’s nuclear program had been exhausted and any additional measures were intended to provoke discontent in the Iranian population [30].
As the United States and its allies offer unflinching support to armed opposition groups under cover of “democratic activism” in non-acquiescent countries in the region, any popular revolution in Iran would unquestionably be supported and used to pressure the government from within, even using the opportunity to launch an armed opposition insurrection. An articled published in The New Yorker by Seymour M. Hersh entitled, “Our Men in Iran?,” documents how members of Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK), an Iranian dissident group and US State Department-listed terrorist organization, were trained in communications, cryptography, small-unit tactics and weaponry by the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) at a base in Nevada starting in 2005 [31]. JSOC instructed MEK operatives on how to penetrate major Iranian communications systems, allowing the group to intercept telephone calls and text messages inside Iran for the purpose of sharing them with American intelligence. The group has been implicated in the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists [32] and the planting of the Stuxnet malware that sabotaged Iran’s nuclear facility in Natanz [33].
MEK was founded in 1965 as a Marxist Islamic mass political movement aimed at agitating the monarchy of the US-backed Iranian Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. The group initially sided with revolutionary clerics led by Ayatollah Khomeini following the 1979 Islamic Revolution, but eventually turned away from the regime during a power struggle that resulted in the group waging urban guerilla warfare against Iran’s Revolutionary Guards in 1981. The organization was later given refuge by Saddam Hussein and mounted attacks on Iran from within Iraqi territory, killing an estimated 17,000 Iranian nationals in the process [34]. MEK exists as the main component of the Paris-based National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), a “coalition of democratic Iranian organizations, groups and personalities,” calling itself a “parliament-in-exile” seeking to “establish a democratic, secular and coalition government” in Iran [35]. Following the toppling of Saddam Hussein, UN special representative in Iraq Martin Kobler organized efforts to relocate MEK insurgents to a former US military base near the Baghdad airport, with the full support of the US Embassy in Iraq and the State Department to avoid violent clashes between the MEK and the Shiite-led Iraqi government [36].
MEK has long received material assistance from Israel, who assisted the organization with broadcasting into Iran from their political base in Paris, while the MEK and NCRI have reportedly provided the United States with intelligence on Iran’s nuclear program. Despite the documented cases of atrocities committed by MEK forces, elder statesmen such as former NATO Supreme Allied Commander General Wesley K. Clark, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former 9/11 Commission Chairman Lee Hamilton were paid $20,000 to $30,000 per engagement to endorse the removal of the Mujahideen-e Khalq from the US State Department’s list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations [37]. NBC News reports that Israel provided financing, training and arms to Mujahideen-e Khalq, who are responsible for killing five Iranian nuclear scientists since 2007 using motorcycle-borne assailants often attaching small magnetic bombs to the exterior of the victims’ cars [38]. A recent investigation by the US Treasury Department has indicated that Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization is financially sponsored by the Israeli regime and Saudi Arabia [39].
Upon launching a war against Iran, aggressor nations would likely utilize MEK forces as opposition insurgents and could even recognize the touted “parliament-in-exile”, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, as Iran’s legitimate representative, much like the how the Friends of Syria group has recognized the opposition Syrian National Council [40]. From her political base in Paris, exiled NCRI leader Maryam Rajavi is a strong candidate for Western support in contrast to internal opposition figures such as Mir-Hossein Mousavi, former Iranian Prime Minister turned political reformist and figurehead of the Green Movement demonstrations in 2009 following the victory of incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in elections widely perceived as a fraudulent [41]. Although Mousavi has advocated greater personal freedoms in Iran and the disbanding of religious police enforcers, he is a strong advocate of Iran’s nuclear energy program and would likely never yield the kind of acquiescence to Western policy that exiled figures such as Maryam Rajavi would uphold in exchange for political support and material assistance [42]. It is widely believed that Mousavi is currently held under house arrest without an arrest warrant, charge or trial [43].
While figures such as Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi publically renounce nuclear weapons [44], Iranian scientists claim to be enriching uranium to 20% to develop radiopharmaceuticals and industrial isotopes under the supervision of the IAEA inspectors [45]. On October 1, 2010, the IAEA proposed a deal according to which Iran would send 3.5% enriched uranium abroad and receive 20% enriched uranium from potential suppliers in return, namely France and the United States, who Tehran accused of stalling negotiations from the start [46]. Tehran was offered a deal at a time when its supplies of 20% enriched uranium were nearly depleted, however Iranian lawmakers rejected the deal after technical studies showed that it would only take two to three months for any country to further enrich the nuclear stockpile and turn it into metal nuclear plates for the Tehran Research Reactor, while suppliers had announced that they would not return fuel to Iran in any time less than seven months [47].
Iran has made efforts to ensure the transparency of its nuclear program by allowing IAEA probes to inspect Iranian sites such as the Parchin military complex where the agency has reported suspicious activities in the past [48]. The IAEA’s recent discovery of traces of uranium enriched up to 27% at Iran’s Fordo enrichment plant sparked controversy, although the enrichment figure is still substantially below the 90% level needed to make the fissile core required in nuclear arms; officials conceded that the likely explanation for the increased level of enrichment was attributed to centrifuges initially over-enriching at the start as technicians adjusted their output [49]. It should be noted that former chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Hans Blix has challenged the IAEA’s own reports on Iran’s nuclear activities, accusing the agency of relying on unverified intelligence from the US and Israel [50]; the IAEA’s most recent report cited Tehran’s progress toward enrichment technology with complete cooperation with the agency and confirms the non-weaponized status of Iranian nuclear activities [51].
Clinton Bastin, former director of US nuclear weapons production programs, has sent an open letter to President Obama regarding the status of Iran’s capacity to produce nuclear weapons [52]. Bastin reiterates, “The ultimate product of Iran’s gas centrifuge facilities would be highly enriched uranium hexafluoride, a gas that cannot be used to make a weapon. Converting the gas to metal, fabricating components and assembling them with high explosives using dangerous and difficult technology that has never been used in Iran would take many years after a diversion of three tons of low enriched uranium gas from fully safeguarded inventories. The resulting weapon, if intended for delivery by missile, would have a yield equivalent to that of a kiloton of conventional high explosives” [53]. The US-based Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) has recently released claims that Iran’s total production of enriched uranium over the past five years would be enough for at least five nuclear weapons stating, “This total amount of 3.5 percent low enriched uranium hexafluoride, if further enriched to weapon grade, is enough to make over five nuclear weapons.” [54]
Bastin’s assessment of Iran’s nuclear program further emphasizes the impracticality of weaponizing the hexafluoride product of Tehran’s gas-centrifuges, as the resulting deterrent would yield the equivalent explosive capacity equal to a kiloton of conventional explosives, producing a highly inefficient nuclear weapon. If Iran chose to produce nuclear weapons in this way, it would take several years to reach the 90% enrichment levels needed for a nuclear deterrent; Iran has complied with the IAEA and the United Nations on this issue and there is no substantial evidence indicating that Tehran has any intention of enriching uranium to 90% for the purpose of creating nuclear weapons. On March 23rd, 2012, Reuters released a special report entitled, “Intel shows Iran nuclear threat not imminent”, concluding that the United States, its European allies and even Israel agree that Tehran does not have a bomb, it has not decided to build one, and it is years away from having a deliverable nuclear warhead [55]. As the West continually implements an unyielding regime of sanctions against Iran when they themselves acknowledge the civilian nature of the Iranian nuclear program, the overwhelming motive behind their actions to pressure Iran into full-scale war on an unprecedented scale is self-evident.
The United States has produced more than 70,000 nuclear weapons between 1951 and 1998 [56], while Israel possess a nuclear weapons stockpile ranging from 75 to 400 warheads [57]. While the hazardous ramifications of Iran’s nuclear development pervade public consciousness, the fact that US legal doctrine has worked to further blur the line between conventional and nuclear warfare remains rarely acknowledged. The March 2005 Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operationsreleased by the Joint Chiefs of Staff envisages “contingency plans” for an offensive first strike use of nuclear weapons against both Iran and North Korea, providing the legal mandate to carry out pre-emptive nuclear war, both in terms of military planning as well as defense procurement and production [58] The 2002 adoption of the Pentagon’s 2001 Nuclear Posture Review by the US Congress marked the cease of prohibition on low yield nuclear weapons and provided funding allocations to pursue the development of tactical nuclear weapons, such as bunker buster (earth penetrator) mini-nukes [59].
The revised Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations (March 2005) envisaged five scenarios where “the use of nuclear weapons might be requested,” namely, “to attack adversary installations including weapons of mass destruction, deep, hardened bunkers containing chemical or biological weapons, or the command and control infrastructure required for the adversary to execute a WMD attack against the United States or its friends and allies” and “to counter potentially overwhelming adversary conventional forces”. The doctrine further cites, “Responsible security planning requires preparation for threats that are possible, though perhaps unlikely today. The lessons of military history remain clear: unpredictable, irrational conflicts occur. Military forces must prepare to counter weapons and capabilities that exist in the near term even if no immediate likely scenarios for war are at hand. To maximize deterrence of WMD use, it is essential US forces prepare to use nuclear weapons effectively and that US forces are determined to employ nuclear weapons if necessary to prevent or retaliate against WMD use” [60].
The possibility of nuclear strikes against Iran pose staggeringly frightening implications for the human family, as the very nations crying foul about the danger of nuclear weapons have prepared the legal infrastructure to use them against others, preemptively. While trust towards the Iranian regime remains questionable among segments of the Iranian population and the international community, Tehran has complied with the IAEA and no evidence exists to implicate Iran with constructing a nuclear weapon. While the fiery rhetoric of Iranian and Israeli officials remains entirely counterproductive, Tel Aviv has shown the least initiative to constructively partake in diplomacy with Iran, as top Israeli officials refuse to even meet with US envoy to the P5+1, Wendy Sherman, who reportedly was sent to Tel Aviv to “reaffirm our unshakable commitment to Israel’s security” [61]. As Israel aggressively employs an apartheid policy domestically, nuclear-armed Tel Aviv boasts its right to strike Iran without consent from any other nation [62]. As our species approaches the increasingly dangerous crossroads of the 21st Century, nations such as Germany, Russia, India and China must utilize their collective influence and technology to mediate this impending security crisis in the Middle East.
Although Iran has asserted its right to develop peaceful nuclear technology as a signatory to the nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty, its uranium-based fuel has wrought negative and inaccurate accusations regarding Tehran’s intentions to weaponize. To ensure the further deflection of erroneous accusations, Iran can truly make an example of itself by phasing out uranium-based nuclear technology and shifting to a liquid fuel based on molten-fluoride salts used in Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) nuclear technology powered by thorium, an obscure, mildly radioactive metal produced as a waste product from the mining of rare earth minerals. Thorium is plentiful, easily accessible and energy dense, a metric ton produces as much energy as 200 tons of uranium, or 3,500,000 ton of coal [63]. Thorium-based reactors consume their own hazardous waste and would serve Iran’s internal needs far more effectively than its current technology. As a nuclear fuel, thorium is both cleaner and safer than uranium and produces benign alpha radiation, unable to even penetrate skin [64].
The governments of China [65] and India [66] have expressed great interest in further developing thorium molten-salt reactor technology. Iran holds 9% of the world’s oil reserves and 17% of its natural gas reserves; the abundant supply of fossil fuel resources has indirectly discouraged the pursuit of alternative renewable energy sources [67]. Iran has enormous potential as a producer of geothermal energy, particularly in the provinces of Azerbaijan and Tehran [68]. There is no shortage of solutions to the current problems faced by the international community in its efforts to oversee peaceful energy technology in Iran. China, Germany and India could share their growing technical expertise with Iran to develop energy solutions that can never be used as a pretext for external military strikes. No credible basis exists to warrant the implementation of economic sanctions against Iran, which are ostensibly in place to coax social unrest and collapse the Iranian economy.
For all the belligerence exuded by the current Iranian regime, the unwavering aggressive it receives from outside forces does nothing to offer the people of Iran any tangible solutions to better themselves and their standard of living. Although the further application of sanctions will inevitably have damaging effects on Tehran, inflated oil price fluctuations have the potential to fracture the fledging austerity-states of the European Union. The failure of emerging markets to adhere to full embargoes on Iran once they come into effect would send a strong message to the architects of such disastrous policy. As nations such as China and Russia acknowledge the imbalanced nature of power in the Security Council and the aggressive stance of the United States and Israel, these nations can best utilize their power by offering technological and diplomatic solutions to avert the detrimental social, economic and spiritual consequences of war.
Article originally posted here: Laying the Foundations for Preemptive Nuclear War Against Iran
Notes:
Notes:
[1] Iran accuses world powers of creating ‘difficult atmosphere’ in nuclear talks, Haaretz, May 24, 2012
[2] Iran claims ‘undeniable right’ to enrich Uranium: new talks, same deadlock, Russia Today, May 25, 2012
[3] Israel takes back promise to Obama not to attack Iran before the election, Russia Today, May 24, 2012
[4] Top Commander Reiterates Iran’s Commitment to Full Annihilation of Israel, FARS, May 20, 2012
[5] Deal or no deal, Iran may be bombed – Israeli minister, Russia Today, May 23, 2012
[6] Germany Ready to Find Diplomatic Solution to Iran’s N. Issue, FARS, May 25, 2012
[7] US Senate approves sanctions against Iran, New Straits Times, May 22, 2012
[8] China slams new US sanctions against Iran, PressTV, May 23, 2012
[9] Moscow Raps US New Sanctions against Iran as Irrational Move, FARS, May 25, 2012
[10] India against more sanctions on Iran, The Hindu, February 11, 2012
[11] India, Iran look at $25 billion trade by 2015, The Economic Times, March 12, 2012
[12] Japan to reduce oil imports, BBC, January 12, 2012
[13] Saudi oil minister pledges Seoul stable crude supply, The Korea Herald, February 3, 2012
[14] Japan to seek stable oil supply from Saudi Arabia, Reuters, May 7, 2012
[15] South Africa Engen buys Saudi crude to replace Iranian supplies, Al Arabiya, May 9, 2012
[16] Saudi Arabia says kingdom pumping 10 million bpd, the most in 5 months, Al Arabiya, May 8, 2012
[17] Exclusive: Iran sanctions seen spurring more Saudi oil sales to U.S. Reuters, March 16, 2012
[18] Iran: Meetings with IAEA Head Paves Way for Negotiations with 5+1, FARS, May 24, 2012
[19] Turkey cuts 20% of oil purchases from Iran, Financial Times, March 30, 2012
[20] U.S. exempts 11 states from Iran sanctions; China, India exposed, Reuters, March 21, 2012
[21] Ibid
[22] Iranian Minister Blames EU Sanctions for Hike in Oil Prices, FARS, March 25, 2012
[23] No One Can Afford Another Round of Iran Sanctions, OilPrice, May 21, 2012
[24] Iran raises interest rate on bank deposits, Financial Times, January 27, 2012
[25] Warning Iran, and lacerating Mitt Romney, a former Mossad chief steps out of the shadows, The Times of Israel, March 28, 2012
[26] Iran’s Nuclear Grass Eaters, Project Syndicate, April 4, 2012
[27] Steinitz: SWIFT sanctions may lead to Iran’s economic collapse, YNET News, March 18, 2012
[28] Israeli threats of attack sparked new wave of Iran sanctions, officials say, Haaretz, March 16, 2012
[29] Iran’s Middle Class on Edge as World Presses In, The New York Times, February 6, 2012
[30] Q&A: Iran sanctions, BBC, February 6, 2012
[31] Our Men in Iran? The New Yorker, April 6, 2012
[32] Israel teams with terror group to kill Iran’s nuclear scientists, U.S. officials tell NBC News, MSNBC, February 9, 2012
[33] Stuxnet Loaded by Iran Double Agents, ISSSource, April 11, 2012
[34] Moqtada Sadr Reiterates Iraqis’ Demand for Expulsion of MKO Terrorists, Fars News Agency, September 19, 2011
[35] About the National Council of Resistance of Iran, The National Council of Resistance of Iran, 2010
[36] Are the MEK’s U.S. friends its worst enemies? Foreign Policy, March 8, 2012
[37] Mujahideen-e Khalq: Former U.S. Officials Make Millions Advocating For Terrorist Organization, Huffington Post, August 8, 2011
[38] Israel teams with terror group to kill Iran’s nuclear scientists, U.S. officials tell NBC News, MSNBC, February 9, 2012
[39] Israel funds terrorist MKO: Investigation, PressTV, May 24, 2012
[40] Friends of Syria recognize SNC as ‘legitimate representative’, Russia Today, April 1, 2012
[41] Iran’s supreme leader orders investigation into claims of vote fraud, Xinhua, June 15, 2009
[42] Iran’s presidential candidates, BBC, June 12, 2009
[43] Iran: Further information: Opposition leaders arbitrarily held, Amnesty International, 2011
[44] Iran: We do not want nuclear weapons, The Washington Post, April 13, 2012
[45] Iranian Experts Place Fuel Plates into Heart of Tehran Research Reactor, FARS, May 23, 2012
[46] Ibid
[47] Ibid
[48] UN nuclear chief: Deal reached on Iran probe, Russia Today, May 22, 2012
[49] Traces of uranium enriched to higher than previous levels found at Iran site, Haaretz, May 25, 2012
[50] Blix: US, Israel source most of IAEA allegations, PressTV, March 25, 2012
[51] Envoy: UN Atomic Report Endorses Peaceful Nature of Iran’s N. Activities, FARS, May 26, 2012
[52] Iran has a Nuclear Power, Not a Weapons Program, 21st Century & Technology, December 2, 2011
[53] Top US Nuclear Expert Tells Obama: There Is No Weapons Threat From Iran, LaRouche Pac, February 25, 2012
[54] ‘Iran has enough enriched uranium for 5 nuclear bombs’ The Times of India, May 26, 2012
[55] SPECIAL REPORT-Intel shows Iran nuclear threat not imminent, Reuters, March 23, 2012
[56] 50 Facts About U.S. Nuclear Weapons, Brookings Institute, August 1998
[57] Nuclear Weapons – Israel, Federation of American Scientists, January 8, 2007
[58] Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations, Joint Chiefs of Staff, March 2005
[59] Ibid
[60] Ibid
[61] U.S. sends senior envoy to Israel to brief government on Iran nuclear talks, Haaretz, May 25, 2012
[62] Bad news unwelcome: Israel refuses to listen to US envoy’s report on Iran, Russia Today, May 26, 2012
[63] How Iran can have nuclear power and the world can have peace, Russia Today, May 07, 2012
[64] Thorium: How to save Europe’s nuclear revival, Centre for European Reform, June 2011
[65] India plans ‘safer’ nuclear plant powered by thorium, The Guardian, November 1, 2011
[67] Renewable energy in Iran: Challenges and opportunities for sustainable development, International Journal of Environmental Science & Technology, Spring 2004
[68] Status of Geothermal Energy in Iran, 19th World Energy Congress, September 2004
No comments:
Post a Comment