.
.
.
.

US, Israel Agree: Iran Not Building Nukes

by Ray McGovern at antiwar.com

Has Iran decided to build a nuclear bomb? That would seem to be the central question in the current bellicose debate over whether the world should simply cripple Iran’s economy and inflict severe pain on its civilian population or launch a preemptive war to destroy its nuclear capability while possibly achieving “regime change.”

And if you’ve been reading The New York Times or following the rest of the Fawning Corporate Media, you’d likely assume that everyone who matters agrees that the answer to the question is yes, although the FCM adds the caveat that Iran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. The line is included with an almost perceptible wink and an “oh, yeah.”

However, a consensus seems to be emerging among the intelligence and military agencies of the United States — and Israel — that Iran has NOT made a decision to build a nuclear weapon. In recent days, that judgment has been expressed by high-profile figures in the defense establishments of the two countries — U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Israel’s Defense Minister Ehud Barak.

You might think that you would have heard more about that, wouldn’t you? The United States and Israel agree that Iran is NOT building a nuclear bomb. However, this joint assessment that Iran has NOT decided to build a nuclear bomb apparently represented too big a change in the accepted narrative for the Times and the rest of the FCM to process.

Yet, on Jan. 18, the day before U.S. Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey arrived for talks in Israel, Israeli Defense Minister Barak gave an interview to Israeli army radio in which he addressed with striking candor how he assesses Iran’s nuclear program. It was not the normal pabulum.

Question: Is it Israel’s judgment that Iran has not yet decided to turn its nuclear potential into weapons of mass destruction?

Barak: … [C]onfusion stems from the fact that people ask whether Iran is determined to break out from the control [inspection] regime right now … in an attempt to obtain nuclear weapons or an operable installation as quickly as possible. Apparently that is not the case.…

Question: How long will it take from the moment Iran decides to turn it into effective weapons until it has nuclear warheads?

Barak: I don’t know; one has to estimate.… Some say a year, others say 18 months. It doesn’t really matter. To do that, Iran would have to announce it is leaving the [UN International Atomic Energy Agency] inspection regime and stop responding to IAEA’s criticism, etc.

Why haven’t they [the Iranians] done that? Because they realize that … when it became clear to everyone that Iran was trying to acquire nuclear weapons, this would constitute definite proof that time is actually running out. This could generate either harsher sanctions or other action against them. They do not want that.

Question: Has the United States asked or demanded that the government inform the Americans in advance, should it decide on military action?

Barak: I don’t want to get into that. We have not made a decision to opt for that, we have not decided on a decision-making date. The whole thing is very far off.…

Question: You said the whole thing is “very far off.” Do you mean weeks, months, years?

Barak: I wouldn’t want to provide any estimates. It’s certainly not urgent. I don’t want to relate to it as though tomorrow it will happen.

As noted in my Jan. 19 article, “Israel Tamps Down Iran War Threats,” which was based mostly on reports from the Israeli press before I had access to the complete transcript of the interview, I noted that Barak appeared to be identifying himself with the consistent assessment of U.S. intelligence community since late 2007 that Iran has not made a decision to go forward with a nuclear bomb.

A Momentous NIE

A formal National Intelligence Estimate of November 2007 — a consensus of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies — contradicted the encrusted conventional wisdom that “of course” Iran’s nuclear development program must be aimed at producing nuclear weapons. The NIE stated: “We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program; … Tehran’s decision to halt its nuclear weapons program suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005.”

The Key Judgments of that Estimate elicited a vituperative reaction from some Israeli officials and in neoconservative circles in the United States. It also angered then-President George W. Bush, who joined the Israelis in expressing disagreement with the judgments. In January 2008, Bush flew to Israel to commiserate with Israeli officials who he said should have been “furious with the United States over the NIE.”

While Bush’s memoir, Decision Points, is replete with bizarre candor, nothing beats his admission that “the NIE tied my hands on the military side,” preventing him from ordering a preemptive war against Iran, an action favored by hawkish Vice President Dick Cheney.

For me personally it was heartening to discover that my former colleagues in the CIA’s analytical division had restored the old ethos of telling difficult truths to power, after the disgraceful years under CIA leaders like George Tenet and John McLaughlin when the CIA followed the politically safer route of telling the powerful what they wanted to hear.

It had been three decades since I chaired a couple of National Intelligence Estimates, but fate never gave me the chance to manage one that played such a key role in preventing an unnecessary and disastrous war as the November 2007 NIE did.

In such pressure-cooker situations, the Estimates job is not for the malleable or the fainthearted. The ethos was to speak with courage, and without fear or favor, but that is often easier said than done. In my days, however, we analysts enjoyed career protection for telling it like we saw it. It was an incredible boost to morale to see that happening again in 2007.

Ever since the NIE was published, however, powerful politicians and media pundits have sought to chip away at its conclusions, suggesting that the analysts were hopelessly naive or politically motivated or vengeful, out to punish Bush and Cheney for the heavy-handed tactics used to push false and dubious claims about Iraq’s WMDs in 2002 and 2003.

A New Conventional Wisdom

There emerged in official Washington a new conventional wisdom that the NIE was erroneous and wasn’t worth mentioning anymore. Though the Obama administration has stood by it, The New York Times and other FCM outlets routinely would state that the United States and Israel agreed that Iran was developing a nuclear bomb and then add the wink-wink denial by Iran.

However, on Jan. 8, Defense Secretary Panetta told Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation that “the responsible thing to do right now is to keep putting diplomatic and economic pressure on them [the Iranians] … and to make sure that they do not make the decision to proceed with the development of a nuclear weapon.”

Panetta was making the implicit point that the Iranians had not made that decision, but just in case someone might miss his meaning, Panetta posed the direct question to himself: “Are they [the Iranians] trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No.”

Barak’s Jan. 18 statement to Israeli army radio indicated that his views dovetail with those of Panetta — and their comments apparently are backed up by the assessments of each nation’s intelligence analysts. In its report on Defense Minister Barak’s remarks, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz on Jan. 19 summed up the change in the position of Israeli leaders as follows: “The intelligence assessment Israeli officials will present … to Dempsey indicates that Iran has not yet decided whether to make a nuclear bomb. The Israeli view is that while Iran continues to improve its nuclear capabilities, it has not yet decided whether to translate these capabilities into a nuclear weapon — or, more specifically, a nuclear warhead mounted atop a missile. Nor is it clear when Iran might make such a decision.”

At The New York Times, the initial coverage of Barak’s interview focused on another element. An article by Isabel Kershner and Rick Gladstone appeared on Jan. 19 on page A5 under the headline “Decision on Whether to Attack Iran is ‘Far Off,’ Israeli Defense Minister Says.”

To their credit, the Times’ Kershner and Gladstone did not shrink from offering an accurate translation of what Barak said on the key point of IAEA inspections: “The Iranians have not ended the oversight exercised by the International Atomic Energy Agency.… They have not done that because they know that that would constitute proof of the military nature of their nuclear program and that would provoke stronger international sanctions or other types of action against their country.”

But missing from the Times article was Barak’s more direct assessment that Iran apparently had not made a decision to press ahead toward construction of a nuclear bomb. That would have undercut the boilerplate in almost every Times story saying that U.S. and Israeli officials believe Iran is working on a nuclear bomb.

But That’s Not the Right Line!

So, what to do? Not surprisingly, the next day (Jan. 20), the Times ran an article by its Middle East bureau chief Ethan Bronner in which he stated categorically: “Israel and the United States both say that Iran is pursuing the building of nuclear weapons — an assertion denied by Iran — ….”

By Jan. 21, the Times had time to prepare an entire page (A8) of articles setting the record “straight,” so to speak, on Iran’s nuclear capabilities and intentions: Here are the most telling excerpts, by article (emphasis mine):

1. “European Union Moves Closer to Imposing Tough Sanctions on Iran,” by Steven Erlanger, Paris:

“Senior French officials are concerned that these measures [sanctions] … will not be strong enough to push the Iranian government into serious, substantive negotiations on its nuclear program which the West says is aimed at producing weapons.”

“In his annual speech on French diplomacy on Friday, President Nicolas Sarkozy accused Iran of lying, and he denounced what he called its ‘senseless race for a nuclear bomb.’”

“Iran says it is enriching uranium solely for peaceful uses and denies a military intent. But few in the West believe Tehran, which has not cooperated fully with inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency and has been pursuing some technologies that have only a military use.”

(Pardon me, please. I’m having a bad flashback. Anyone remember the Times’ peerless reporting on those infamous “aluminum tubes” that supposedly were destined for nuclear centrifuges — until some folks did a Google search and found they were for the artillery then used by Iraq?)

2. “China Leader Warns Iran Not to Make Nuclear Arms,” by Michael Wines, Beijing:

“Prime Minister Wen Jiabao wrapped up a six-day Middle East tour this week with stronger-than-usual criticism of Iran’s defiance on its nuclear program….”

“Mr. Wen’s comments on Iran were unusually pointed for Chinese diplomacy. In Doha, Qatar’s capital, he said China ‘adamantly opposes Iran developing and possessing nuclear weapons.’”

“Western nations suspect that Iran is working toward building a nuclear weapon, while Iran insists its program is peaceful.”

3. “U.S. General Urges Closer Ties With Israel,” by Isabel Kershner, Jerusalem:

“Though Iran continues to insist that its nuclear program is only for civilian purposes, Israel, the United Stated, and much of the West are convinced that Iran is working to develop a weapons program.…”

Never (Let Up) on Sunday

Next it was time for the Times to trot out David Sanger from the Washington bullpen. Many will remember him as one of the Times’ stenographers/cheerleaders for the Bush/Cheney attack on Iraq in March 2003. An effusive hawk also on Iran, Sanger was promoted to a position as chief Washington correspondent, apparently for services rendered.

In his Jan. 22 article, “Confronting Iran in a Year of Elections,” Sanger pulls out all the stops, even resurrecting Condoleezza Rice’s “mushroom cloud” to scare all of us — and, not least, the Iranians:

“From the perception of the Iranians, life may look better on the other side of the mushroom cloud,” said Ray Takeyh, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. He may be right: while the Obama administration has vowed that it will never tolerate Iran as a nuclear weapons state, a few officials admit that they may have to settle for a “nuclear capable’” Iran that has the technology, the nuclear fuel and the expertise to become a nuclear power in a matter of weeks or months.

Were that not enough, enter the national champion of the Times cheerleading squad that prepared the American people in 2002 and early 2003 for the attack on Iraq, former executive editor Bill Keller. He graced us the next day (Jan. 23) with an op-ed entitled “Bomb-Bomb-Bomb, Bomb-Bomb-Iran?” — though he wasn’t favoring a military strike, at least not right now. Here’s Keller:

The actual state of the [nuclear] program is not entirely clear, but the best open-source estimates are that if Ayatollah Ali Khamenei ordered full-speed-ahead — which there is no sign he has done — they could have an actual weapon in a year or so.… In practice, Obama’s policy promises to be tougher than Bush’s. Because Obama started out with an offer of direct talks — which the Iranians foolishly spurned — world opinion has shifted in our direction.

Wow. With Iraqi egg still all over his face, the disgraced Keller gets to “spurn” history itself — to rewrite the facts. Sorry, Bill, it was not Iran, but rather Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other neocons in the U.S. Department of State and White House (with you and neocon allies in the press cheering them on), who “foolishly spurned” an offer by Iran in 2010 to trade about half its low-enriched uranium for medical isotopes. It was a deal negotiated by Turkey and Brazil, but it was viewed by the neocons as an obstacle to ratcheting up the sanctions.

In his Jan. 23 column, with more sophomoric glibness, Keller wrote this:

We may now have sufficient global support to enact the one measure that would be genuinely crippling — a boycott of Iranian oil. The Iranians take this threat to their economic livelihood seriously enough that people who follow the subject no longer minimize the chance of a naval confrontation in the Strait of Hormuz. It’s not impossible that we will get war with Iran even without bombing its nuclear facilities.

How neat! War without even trying!

The Paper of (Checkered) Record

Guidance to all NYT hands: Are you getting the picture? After all, what does Defense Minister Barak know? Or Defense Secretary Panetta? Or the 16 agencies of the U.S. intelligence community? Or apparently even Israeli intelligence?

The marching orders from the Times’ management appear to be that you should pay no heed to those sources of information. Just repeat the mantra: Everyone knows Iran is hard at work on the Bomb.

As is well-known, other newspapers and media outlets take their cue from the Times. Small wonder, then, that USA Today seemed to be following the same guidance on Jan. 23, as can be seen in its major editorial on military action against Iran:

The U.S. and Iran will keep steaming toward confrontation, Iran intent on acquiring the bomb to establish itself as a regional power, and the U.S. intent on preventing it to protect allies and avoid a nuclear arms race in the world’s most volatile region.

One day, the U.S. is likely to face a wrenching choice: bomb Iran, with the nation fully united and prepared for the consequences, or let Iran have the weapons, along with a Cold War-like doctrine ensuring Iran’s nuclear annihilation if it ever uses them. In that context, sanctions remain the last best hope for a satisfactory solution.

And, of course, the U.S. press corps almost never adds the context that Israel already possesses an undeclared arsenal of hundreds of nuclear weapons, or that Iran is essentially surrounded by nuclear weapons states, including India, Pakistan, Russia, China, and — at sea — the United States.

PBS Equally Guilty

PBS’s behavior adhered to its customary don’t-offend-the-politicians-who-might-otherwise-cut-our-budget attitude on the Jan. 18 NewsHour — about 12 hours after Ehud Barak’s interview started making the rounds. Host Margaret Warner set the stage for an interview with neocon Dennis Ross and Vali Nasr (a professor at Tufts) by using a thoroughly misleading clip from former Sen. Rick Santorum’s Jan. 1 appearance on Meet the Press.

Warner started by saying: “Back in the U.S. many Republican presidential candidates have been vowing they’d be even tougher with Tehran. Former Senator Rick Santorum spoke on NBC’s Meet the Press: ‘I would be saying to the Iranians, you open up those facilities, you begin to dismantle them and make them available to inspectors, or we will degrade those facilities through air strikes and make it very public that we are doing so.’”

Santorum seemed totally unaware that there are U.N. inspectors in Iran, and host David Gregory did nothing to correct him, leaving Santorum’s remark unchallenged. The blogosphere immediately lit up with requests for NBC to tell their viewers that there are already U.N. inspectors in Iran, which unlike Israel is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and allows IAEA inspections.

During the Warner interview, Dennis Ross performed true to form, projecting supreme confidence that he knows more about Iran’s nuclear program than the Israeli Defense Minister and the U.S. intelligence community combined:

Margaret Warner: If you hamstring their [Iran’s] Central Bank, and the U.S. persuades all these other big customers not to buy Iranian oil, that could be thought of as an act of war on the part of the Iranians. Is that a danger?

Ross: I think there’s a context here. The context is that the Iranians continue to pursue a nuclear program. And unmistakably to many, that is a nuclear program whose purpose is to achieve nuclear weapons. That has a very high danger, a very high consequence. So the idea that they could continue with that and not realize that at some point they have to make a choice, and if they don’t make the choice, the price they’re going to pay is a very high one, that’s the logic of increasing the pressure.

Never mind that the Israeli defense minister had told the press something quite different some 12 hours before.

Still, it is interesting that Barak’s comments on how Israeli intelligence views Iran’s nuclear program now mesh so closely with the NIE in 2007. This is the new and significant story here, as I believe any objective journalist would agree.

However, the FCM — led by The New York Times — cannot countenance admitting that they have been hyping the threat from Iran as they did with Iraq’s nonexistent WMDs just nine years ago. So they keep repeating the line that Israel and the U.S. agree that Iran is building a nuclear weapon.

In this up-is-down world, America’s newspaper of record won’t even report accurately what Israel (or the CIA) thinks on this important issue, if that goes against the alarmist conventional wisdom that the neocons favor. Thus, we have this divergence between what the U.S. media is reporting as flat fact — i.e., that Israel and the United States believe Iran is building a bomb (though Iran denies it) — and the statements from senior Israeli and U.S. officials that Iran has NOT decided to build a bomb.

While this might strike some as splitting hairs — since peaceful nuclear expertise can have potential military use — this hair is a very important one. If Iran is not working on building a nuclear bomb, then the threats of preemptive war are not only unjustified, they could be exactly the motivation for Iran to decide that it does need a nuclear bomb to protect itself and its people.

Originally published by ConsortiumNews.com.

Less Jew emotion/hype and more objectivity with Iran.

.
.
.
.

Avoiding a ‘Dumb War’ With Iran

by Philip Giraldi at antiwar.com

The media and the punditry have been deliberately misrepresenting facts to persuade the people of the United States to start another war, not unlike in the lead-up to the Iraq fiasco. Since 9/11, hard-liners in the United States have depicted one Muslim country after another as major threats to U.S. security. They have justified attacks on Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, and Afghanistan, and they have endorsed Israel’s military actions against Syria, Gaza, and Lebanon — 10 Muslim countries.

(Persuading the USA people to go to war is no longer necessary in Police State Jew run JEWSA , and that has certainly been the case with the above 10 examples. The executive is all powerful.....and not by the people...for the people. Part of the rationale of repeated threats against mullah run Iran is to subdue the Iranian leadership, and also as a conditioning mechanism for the Jew leadership of the JEWSA as to why they need to eventually go to war against Iran for Israel, after overthrowing the USA puppet regime in 1979. Kids and adults alike exchange insults and threats before they fight. The trick is to make Iran as powerful as possible as a Third World country, by one and ALL righteous peace loving people.......so that Israel thinks twice. The Jew respects strength and power, as do most people)

This time around, Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and New Gingrich are all promising to disarm Iran by force. Romney has a neocon-heavy foreign policy team (possibly an agent of Israel), while Gingrich’s campaign received at least $5 million in financial support from Las Vegas billionaire Sheldon Adelson, a passionate supporter of Israel. Meanwhile, the White House continues to dither by drawing “red lines” that appear to be more debating points meant to appease the Israelis than substantive policies.

(I question whether the USA since 2001 has had reasonably functioning governments or mere fronts for Israel)

Those arguing for war in Congress, think tanks, and the media have been exploiting a new International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report issued in November 2011, which they interpret to mean that Iran is building a nuclear weapon that poses a major threat to the United States. But the truth is that the IAEA document is essentially political, not factual. It is based on old intelligence assessments made mostly by the United States and Israel using sometimes fabricated information in an attempt to discredit Iran. In reality, the IAEA makes regular inspection visits to Iran’s nuclear facilities and has TV cameras monitoring its sites. While there is legitimate reason to challenge some of Iran’s actions, the nuclear program is not as threatening as many maintain.

Even those who are arguing against the rush to war frequently have succumbed to the propaganda. Leslie Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, in a piece titled “Think Before Acting on Iran,” states that “Iran’s leaders are bad guys capable of doing dangerous things” and then goes on to describe “its relentless moves toward acquiring nuclear weapons.” Well, Gelb should be well-informed enough to know that Iran’s leadership is both cautious and pragmatic because it is primarily interested in regime preservation, not in exporting the revolution or converting the world to Shi’ism. He should also be aware that there is no evidence whatsoever that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. Gelb’s lack of connection with objective reality is reflected in his recommendation to openly debate the wisdom of going to war with Iran in a suitable forum like the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

A genuine nuclear expert, Mohamed ElBaradei, a Nobel Peace Prize recipient and former IAEA director-general, said recently, “I don’t believe Iran is a clear and present danger. All I see is the hype about the threat posed by Iran.” And he is not alone in that judgment: All 16 U.S. intelligence agencies concluded “with high confidence” in a 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program as of 2003. They reviewed the evidence again in 2009-10 and concluded that there was still no solid evidence that the program had been in any way revived.

It is astonishing that the American people are again being gulled by a replay of the “Iraq WMD threat,” which used false information and sustained innuendo to lead the United States into a war that did not need to be fought. As Philip Zelikow, executive secretary of the 9/11 Commission, said, “The ‘real threat’ from Iraq was not a threat to the United States. The unstated threat was the threat against Israel.” It is not unreasonable to argue that today the formula and rationalization are the same with the Persian threat, if there is one, making it a matter of concern mostly for Israel. And Israel is far from defenseless, with an arsenal of 200 nuclear weapons of its own mounted on ballistic missiles and also on cruise missiles that can be fired from submarines.

But many knowledgeable Israelis actually argue that there is no threat from Iran, even as the politicians in Tel Aviv argue insistently that military action must be taken. Former Mossad head Meir Dagan commented that an air force strike against Iran’s nuclear installations would be “stupid,” a view also endorsed by two other ex-Mossad chiefs, Danny Yatom and Ephraim Halevy. Dagan added his opinion that “any strike against [the civilian program] is an illegal act according to international law.” More recently, the Israeli intelligence community has prepared its own report, similar to the U.S. NIE, which concludes that Iran has not decided to construct a nuclear weapon, leading the country’s defense minister, Ehud Barak, to conclude that the possibility of a war “is very far off.”

Dagan also pointed out another reality that has not escaped some policymakers in Washington and Tel Aviv: bombing Iran would guarantee that the Iranians would decide to go nuclear for self-defense and would certainly lead them to retaliate against Israel through their principal surrogate Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, which is reported to have tens of thousands of rockets and even Scud-type longer-range missiles. If American politicians and Israel’s own political leadership were really concerned about the well-being of Israel, they would be doing everything in their power to stop a new war rather than start one.

And then there is the question of what a sustained bombing campaign by the United States would actually accomplish. Since 2005, the U.S. military and intelligence communities have engaged in a major covert operation to identify and derail Iran’s nuclear program. The Pentagon has studied the Iranian nuclear target and has concluded that it would be futile to attempt to eliminate that program — which is dispersed throughout the country and frequently located underground — through aerial bombing. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and other experts have stated that even a prolonged air attack would only delay any weapons program for a year or two at most. This is identical to the view of leading Israelis.

(That...and the fact that an attack on such a major Muslim country would encourage other states to go for nuke bomb programs in the Greater Middle East...either as a safety measure against the rampant USA, or against Iran once it was known the mullahs really were going for one)

Washington is already spending as much as the rest of the world combined on national defense and $100 billion per year on Afghanistan alone, which is looking increasingly forlorn. The anti-Iran lobby has been beating the drums for an attack for years, but another Asian war on top of Afghanistan is not in America’s or Israel’s interests, whatever some of Israel’s apologists might claim. The “experts” who claim that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said he would “wipe Israel off the map” have got it wrong. Genuine language specialists have pointed out that the original statement in Farsi actually said that Israel would someday collapse: “The imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time” is the accurate rendition. The imam being referred to is the late Ayatollah Khomeini, making the statement a quote within a quote. It’s wishful thinking perhaps, but far from a threat. The fact is that Iran has not attacked any of its neighbors since the 17th century, when it went to war with the Ottoman Turks, and has never threatened to attack Israel. Nor does Iran threaten the United States in any way.

(Russo-Persian War (1804–1813), Ottoman–Persian War (1821–1823), Russo-Persian War (1826–1828), Anglo-Persian War (1856-1857)

We must not over egg the pudding by suggesting Iranians are all flower loving pansies......who are effeminate and passive, which actually encourages the JEW to have a go (as with defenseless Libya with its oil wealth NOW) Not since the days of Nadir Shah 265 years ago, effectively and accurately speaking, have Persians committed themselves to aggressive wars of conquest against neighbors. The latter wars in the 19th century were ALL defensive wars against aggressive neighbors who initiated wars first on poor pretexts, and subsequently annexed Persian territory in the Caucasus, Afghanistan, and Central Asia.)

Presidential candidate Barack Obama promised to open a dialogue to resolve problems with the Iranians, but that pledge has been an empty one. In reality, the United States has spoken to Iranian government officials only once in the past three years, and that encounter lasted less than 45 minutes. Since that time, offers to resolve differences through diplomacy have come several times from the Iranians and have been ignored by both official Washington and the mainstream media. Not talking means that war is the only way to obtain a resolution, which would be a very bad outcome for both sides. Washington still has time to make direct diplomacy work in an attempt to convince all parties to back down from the developing crisis, but serious intent and good-faith negotiations are necessary.

The American military has recently concluded what President Obama once labeled a “dumb war” in Iraq, so it behooves us not to undertake another dumb war against a country that is much larger, better prepared, and three times more populous. Such a conflict would not be containable and would set off a major regional war. Such a war, contrary to what some argue, would not be good for the United States, Iran, or even Israel, and it would make no one safer.

"Liberated Libya"

.
.
.
.
In "al-CIA-duh" Libya things are not so good, naturally.

The new NTC government is a puppet regime brought into power by the USA. Its ultimate master is the JEWSA.

Thousands of foreign USA/NATO troops are swarming into the country, to create more genocidal post-Saddam Iraq like conditions (2003--2011). But the blame will be put on the hapless divided Libyans, the actual victims...............all psychopaths tend to blame the victim, without the trouble of reflecting on their own crimes. That would be too human.

This is a foreboding, cautionary tale for Tunisia, Egypt where the USA trained generals betrayed their comrade, Hosni Mubarak(thu, thu, thu).......and Syria, should it allow itself to be defeated by NATO/USA through their "al-CIA-duh" proxies in Southern Turkey, and Lebanon.

The JEWSA, as with Iraq will steal billions $ worth of Libyan oil, the best and purest in the world, where many of the NATO/USA forces are currently heading, whilst simultaneously conducting destabilization of the country using the "El Salvador option".

The greater the stupidy of the camel drinking Arab leaders against their own interests, and their own people....the more problems for them and their people. This applies to crypto Jewish run Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the rest of the casino loving slaves of the JEWSA.

The Arab lives in one house, if one part catches fire, all of it will catch fire....and no amount of CIA/ State Department reassurance will save the entire Arab house.

There can be no peace with "al-CIA-duh" Wahabi Salafists regimes running Arab countries. There can be no power sharing agreements with these dogs. There can no elections whilst these fifth column dogs participate under their own names or through proxies.

____________________

Clashes, Torture on the Rise in ‘Disillusioned’ Libya

Public Seen Losing Faith in New US-Backed Regime

by Jason Ditz at antiwar.com

In “liberated” Libya, violence is on the rise as militias attack one another on a regular basis and seemingly everyone accuses everyone else of being a Gadhafi ally. Arrest, in this environment, often means open-ended detention without charges. And torture.

Nominally under the control of the US and NATO-backed National Transitional Council (NTC), this new Libya is a nation awash in arms and grudges, the product of an ugly civil war and an international community that seems determined to throw its weight behind any interested party still alive on the ground.

In one instance, a knife fight at a market between two men from neighboring towns culminated in the massing of troops and the kidnapping and torture death of an uninvolved resident of one of the towns. His wife has just given birth the day before. Each side claims the other are pro-Gadhafi fighters.

Western diplomats are shrugging off the problems as a “country coming down off a victory high.” But Libyans don’t trust their new interim government and mass protests are breaking out against the brand-new regime.

The NTC is looking to placate the public with a few token resignations, but the issue goes well beyond the unpopularity of a few late-in-the-game defectors from the old regime. The protests against the Gadhafi regime began with the hope of a free country, and the realization that the NTC commandeered their revolution — possibly replacing one tyrant with another — is not something that can be easily tamped down.

Iran India New Deal?

.
.
.
.
This has not been officially confirmed by both governments.

____________________________

'India to buy Iran oil in gold not dollars'

By Presstv.com

India has agreed to pay the price of crude oil it imports from Iran in gold, which makes it the first country to drop the US dollar for purchasing the Iranian oil.

According to a report published by DEBKAfile news website, unnamed sources have stressed that China is also expected to follow suit.

India and China take about one million barrels per day (bpd), or 40 percent of Iran's total exports of 2.5 million bpd and both of them have huge reserves of gold.

The report added that by trading in gold, New Delhi and Beijing enable Tehran to bypass the upcoming freeze on its Central Bank's assets and the oil embargo which the European Union's foreign ministers agreed to impose on Monday, January 23.

The EU currently buys around 20 percent of Iran's oil exports.

On the other hand, experts say the vast sums involved in these transactions are expected to boost the price of gold and depress the value of the dollar on world markets.

“An Indian delegation visited Tehran last week to discuss payment options in view of the new sanctions. The two sides were reported to have agreed that payment for the oil purchased would be partly in yen and partly in rupees. The switch to gold was kept [in the] dark,” the report stated.

India is Iran's second largest customer after China, and purchases around USD 12-billion-a-year worth of Iranian crude, or about 12 percent of its consumption.

Delhi is to execute its transactions, the report said, through two state-owned banks: the Calcutta-based UCO Bank, whose board of directors is made up of the Indian government, the Reserve Bank of India representatives, and Halk Bankasi (Peoples Bank) -- Turkey's seventh largest bank which is owned by the government.

US President Barack Obama signed into law, on December 31, 2011, new sanctions which seek to penalize other countries for importing Iran's oil or doing transaction with Islamic Republic's Central Bank.

Foreign ministers of the European Union also imposed sanctions on Iran's oil imports over the country's peaceful nuclear program during their Monday meeting in Brussels.

The sanctions involve an immediate ban on all new oil contracts with Iran and a freeze on the assets of the country's Central Bank within the EU.

Tehran has warned that the embargo will have negative consequences, such as increasing the oil price.

Iran India trade

.
.
.
.
India, Iran to trade oil in rupees

By Presstv.com

Iran and India have agreed to settle part of their annual USD 12-billion oil trade in rupees as a means of circumventing new US sanctions against Iran's oil and financial sectors.


An Indian government source told Reuters that the two countries have been using a Turkish bank as intermediary to settle part of the payment for more than a year but still face problems in paying for Iran's oil.

"[In the new system,] the Central Bank of Iran will open an account with an Indian bank for receiving the payment…. The system will start working soon,” the source who spoke on condition of anonymity added.

The source did not specify the name of the Indian bank, but other sources have said that Iran could open an account with India's UCO Bank as it does not have any US ties.

Indian refiners began using Turkey's Halkbank in July 2011 to pay for Iranian oil but this route could be vulnerable to the new US measures.

The source, however, added that in addition to rupee payments, Indian refiners will continue to make payments through the current mechanism using Halkbank "as long as it continues."

An Indian delegation was in Tehran this week, discussing possible payment options. The source continued that the decision to pay in rupees was made after a meeting there.

The government source went on to say that Iran has agreed to step up imports from India, which added up to some USD 2.7 billion in 2010-11 and including rice and tea.

(Iran may export up to $110 billion worth of petroleum products and $40 billion worth of non-oil exports for financial year ending in March 30th 2012, HOWEVER for the same period imports will only be a meager $60 billion. This is not balanced International trade.....which encourages greater FAIR TRADE between Iran and its strategic trading partners such as China, and India. Iran needs to boost spending in huge strategic projects in INFRASTRUCTURE and INDUSTRY which should boost the Iranian economy without putting inflationary pressure, and provide more jobs, and real economic growth with help from China, India, South Korea and Japan.......after all there is only so much rice and tea Iran can import from India, or clothes/toys from China)

"This will cushion them (Iran) to some extent from exchange rate volatility," the source added.

India is the world's fourth-largest oil consumer country which supplies about 12% of its oil imports, or 350,000-400,000 barrels per day, from Iran. This makes the country, Tehran's second-biggest oil customer after China.

The US and its European allies accuse Iran of having a covert military nuclear program and have convinced the UN Security Council to pass four rounds of sanctions against the country.

On December 31, 2011, US President Barack Obama signed into law new sanctions which aim to penalize countries dealing with Iran's Central Bank or importing Iran's crude.

Tehran has vehemently rejected the accusations saying that as signatory to Non-Proliferation Treaty it has full right to peaceful use of the nuclear energy.

Iran China oil trade

.
.
.
.
Perhaps Iran can sell some of Syria's oil also. After all oil is oil.

_________________________

China oil imports from Iran up by 30%

By Presstv.com

China's General Administration of Customs announced on Saturday that the figure shows the world's second largest economy traded in nearly 557,000 barrels of oil from Iran on a daily basis last year, The Wall Street Journal reported.

Customs data showed that China's full-year crude imports totaled 253.78 million metric tons, up by 6.1 percent in 2011.

China's overall crude imports for December 2011 stood at 21.92 million metric tons, up 5.1 percent in comparison with the same period in the previous year.

Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao said on January 19 that his country would continue oil trade with Iran in defiance of proposed US and European sanctions which aim to stop Iran's oil exports.

Speaking to reporters during the last leg of his Persian Gulf tour in the Qatari capital, Doha, Wen said Beijing would continue normal trade relations with Tehran while supporting UN Security Council resolutions on Iran's nuclear issue.

"China's oil trade with Iran is a normal commercial activity," he added.

China's prime minister said, "I believe that China is not the only country to buy oil from Iran... Legitimate trade has to be protected if global economic chaos is to be avoided."

He also underlined his country's firm opposition to development and possession of nuclear weapons by any country, calling for the establishment of a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East.

China's rapid growth in recent years has seen a surge in demand for oil in the country.

Assad's Secular Socialist Syria is fighting Eretz Israel through USA/NATO and Doenme Turkey

.
.

.

.
Philip Giraldi is a former CIA analyst who takes a critical position of the USA's expensive, illegal, worthless wars for Avahat Eretz Israel.(Though he does not explicitly identify the ultimate objective of Avahat Eretz Israel, or why the JEWSA goes to so much trouble for such an objective)

Syria's options are simple given the objectives outlined by the writer below by the NATO/USA for Israel, against Assad's Syria.

(i) Seal the border between Turkey/Syria, with electrified fences and mines. Russia has expertise in this area, and the capacity to build effective border control entities/structures. Russia/Iran have the funds....Syria has the manpower.

(ii) Station at least 200,000 security personnel on the Syrian/Turkish border. Police, paramilitary and army.

(iii) Install watch towers on the border.

(iv) Install movement activated lights on the Syrian/Turkish border.

(v) Install listening devices near the Syrian Turkish border.

(vi) Do likewise on the Mediterranean coast, and the Lebanese border.

(vii) Expel all Westerners from Syria.

The funding for this project could be $10 billion but Russia, Iran and Syria have the money to undertake it.

Let NATO/USA know that Syria means business, and is serious.

________________________

NATO vs. Syria

By Philip Giraldi at the American Conservative.

Americans should be concerned about what is happening in Syria, if only because it threatens to become another undeclared war like Libya but much, much worse.

Calls for regime change have come from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who several weeks ago predicted a civil war. That is indeed likely if the largely secular and nationalist regime of Bashar al-Assad falls, pitting Sunni against Shia against Alawite. Indigenous Christians will be caught in the meat grinder. Ironically, many of the Christians in Damascus are Iraqis who experienced the last round of liberation in their own country and had to flee for their lives.

NATO is already clandestinely engaged in the Syrian conflict, with Turkey taking the lead as U.S. proxy. Ankara’s foreign minister, Ahmet Davitoglu, has openly admitted that his country is prepared to invade as soon as there is agreement among the Western allies to do so. The intervention would be based on humanitarian principles, to defend the civilian population based on the “responsibility to protect” doctrine that was invoked to justify Libya. Turkish sources suggest that intervention would start with creation of a buffer zone along the Turkish-Syrian border and then be expanded. Aleppo, Syria’s largest and most cosmopolitan city, would be the crown jewel targeted by liberation forces.

Unmarked NATO warplanes are arriving at Turkish military bases close to Iskenderum on the Syrian border, delivering weapons from the late Muammar Gaddafi’s arsenals as well as volunteers from the Libyan Transitional National Council who are experienced in pitting local volunteers against trained soldiers, a skill they acquired confronting Gaddafi’s army. Iskenderum is also the seat of the Free Syrian Army, the armed wing of the Syrian National Council. French and British special forces trainers are on the ground, assisting the Syrian rebels while the CIA and U.S. Spec Ops are providing communications equipment and intelligence to assist the rebel cause, enabling the fighters to avoid concentrations of Syrian soldiers.

CIA analysts are skeptical regarding the march to war. The frequently cited United Nations report that more than 3,500 civilians have been killed by Assad’s soldiers is based largely on rebel sources and is uncorroborated. The Agency has refused to sign off on the claims. Likewise, accounts of mass defections from the Syrian Army and pitched battles between deserters and loyal soldiers appear to be a fabrication, with few defections being confirmed independently. Syrian government claims that it is being assaulted by rebels who are armed, trained, and financed by foreign governments are more true than false.

In the United States, many friends of Israel are on the Assad regime-change bandwagon, believing that a weakened Syria, divided by civil war, will present no threat to Tel Aviv. But they should think again, as these developments have a way of turning on their head. The best organized and funded opposition political movement in Syria is the Muslim Brotherhood.

Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.

Assad's Secular Socialist Syria

.
.
.
.
And so "al-CIA-duh" rebels posing as ardent righteous patriots commit terrorism in Syria from the safe haven of Doenme Turkey. They are backed by NATO forces who direct them, as they did in Libya recently.

The JEWSA directed objective is to install a militant Wahabi Sunni based "al-CIA-duh" type of government in Damascus, as they are doing in Libya, Tunisia and Egypt. This is a long PROCESS where by many Middle-East countries will have "al-CIA-duh' affiliated governments, leaving Israel as the only pure Democracy.........remember this is a LONG PROCESS....planned many years ago. Thereafter these "al-CIA-duh" run states will have to be attacked directly by USA/NATO forces to "protect" Israel........Twisted logic? Not really, if you are dreaming of Avahat Erezt Israel.




In Syria ethnicity cannot be used to divide and rule the country, as in Libya (dark skinned Libyans against light skinned Libyans....Eastern Libyan tribal groups verses Western Libyans), and so religion will be used.

In Syria there are Sunni Muslims, Alawite Muslims (branch of Shia Islam.....hence why Syria has close relations with Shia Iran, and Shia Hezbollah), Christians and Druze.

Baathist Socialism under the Assad's have suppressed any religious extremism......indeed in Homs and Hama in 1982, when Western funded Muslim Brotherhood members attempted an uprising they were brutally suppressed, resulting in the death of 20--30,000 people in those two cities. Assad in that sense has a long way to go, before he surpasses his fathers record.

The elite around Assad are Alawite and are a minority propagated by the colonial French originally.

Should Bashar al-Assad lose to "al-CIA-duh" backed by NATO/USA power, then it will be a catastrophe for the country in the manner of Iraq after the USA occupied the country, viciously, maliciously and criminally. Targeted groups for massacre would be:

(i) Ba-athist members of the ruling party, tens of thousands of men and women, educated, middle class and skilled. This is what happened in Iraq, under American control.

(ii) Syrian Christians, among the oldest Christian groups......in the manner of Iraq where the country's once proud one million Christian community has been decimated into forced exile all over the world.....whilst the country was under USA control. "al-CIA-duh" will ensure their cleansing from Syria, where they have lived for 2000 years.

The Assyrians/Syriacs are significant ethnic Christian minorities that mainly live in the north and northeast (al-Qamishli, al-Hasakah) and number around 877,000–1,200,000 in Syria.

Armenians number approximately 190,000. Syria holds the 7th largest Armenian population in the world.


(iii) The next targeted group will obviously be the Alawites, ALL 3.5 million of them. They will not be tolerated in the new "al-CIA-duh" Salafist Wahabi Sunni Muslim Brotherhood Syria. No compromise for them.

(iv) The next targeted group will be the secular middle class intellectuals, and technocratic class.....many of them still believe in Socialism, many do not. But the main thing is they do not believe in theocratic states. As with Mullah Iran, with its 5 million Iranian emigres, and the destroyed technocratic class of Iraq, the same will be repeated in Syria.....GUARANTEED.

(v) Then finally the Druze will be targeted, since they are not considered Muslims.

Druze number around 700,000, and concentrate mainly in the southern area of Jabal al-Druze.

This millenia's old cosmopolitan society will be uprooted and destroyed to satisfy the lust for empire of the Jew, through the fifth column front of "al-CIA-duh" and criminal NATO/USA forces.

A lot more good people will die in Syria if the "al-CIA-duh" come to power through the backing of NATO/USA.

Remember only 10,000 mostly Iraqi soldiers died when the USA invaded Iraq in 2003, BUT under 8 years of occupation by the USA with the arrival of "al-CIA-duh" in the scene, allegedly 1.5 million people have died, and 5 million have become internal and external exiles in Iraq.

Despite the hysteria of the BBC, very few people died in the Iranian uprising of 1978-79 backed by the USA/UK.....a few hundred at most. Since 1979, maybe 1 million Iranians have died through unnecessary wars, internal political wars, and the application of very harsh theocratic laws in the country. 5 million good educated skilled Iranians have elected to leave their country.

I suppose its all too obvious a point, but Bashar al-Assad must fight fight fight for his country, and for his people. ..........because what will come under "al-CIA-duh" will be catastrophic for the country. Better to lose 5,000---50,000 people battling "al-CIA-duh" and NATO-USA forces NOW, then losing 500,000--5,000,000 LATER under the control of "al-CIA-duh" with Israeli, American and NATO forces crawling ALL over the country in support of the "al-CIA-duh" regime (Libya).

"al-CIA-duh" in power in Damascus will be a perfect foil for repeated Israeli raids into the country in the manner of Hezbollah Lebanon, and Hamas Gaza.

Syria must find clear credible allies such as Russia, Iran and China.

Syria needs to enter into secret agreements where by its embargoed oil is sold via Russia and Iran......400,000 barrels is but a drop in the international petroleum market but its revenue will be a Godsend to the Assad regime.

If USA/NATO forces can be stationed near Syria in Doenme Turkey, why can't Russia and Iran station thousands of troops supporting the Syrian army, fighting 'al-CIA-duh"?

Can Syrian intelligence infiltrate, and follow rebel forces into Turkey, Lebanon? How difficult can it be? Can Kurdish groups be trained to attack Turkey?

In all events Bashar al-Assad should not think of exiling himself to the Gulf. He must serve his country's people against the International criminals and terrorists.

___________________

Most Syrians back President Assad, but you'd never know from western media

Assad's popularity, Arab League observers, US military involvement: all distorted in the west's propaganda war

By Jonathan Steele in the Guardian and information Clearing House.

Suppose a respectable opinion poll found that most Syrians are in favour of Bashar al-Assad remaining as president, would that not be major news? Especially as the finding would go against the dominant narrative about the Syrian crisis, and the media considers the unexpected more newsworthy than the obvious.

Alas, not in every case. When coverage of an unfolding drama ceases to be fair and turns into a propaganda weapon, inconvenient facts get suppressed. So it is with the results of a recent YouGov Siraj poll on Syria commissioned by The Doha Debates, funded by the Qatar Foundation. Qatar's royal family has taken one of the most hawkish lines against Assad – the emir has just called for Arab troops to intervene – so it was good that The Doha Debates published the poll on its website. The pity is that it was ignored by almost all media outlets in every western country whose government has called for Assad to go.

The key finding was that while most Arabs outside Syria feel the president should resign, attitudes in the country are different. Some 55% of Syrians want Assad to stay, motivated by fear of civil war – a specter that is not theoretical as it is for those who live outside Syria's borders. What is less good news for the Assad regime is that the poll also found that half the Syrians who accept him staying in power believe he must usher in free elections in the near future. Assad claims he is about to do that, a point he has repeated in his latest speeches. But it is vital that he publishes the election law as soon as possible, permits political parties and makes a commitment to allow independent monitors to watch the poll.

Biased media coverage also continues to distort the Arab League's observer mission in Syria. When the league endorsed a no-fly zone in Libya last spring, there was high praise in the west for its action. Its decision to mediate in Syria was less welcome to western governments, and to high-profile Syrian opposition groups, who increasingly support a military rather than a political solution. So the league's move was promptly called into doubt by western leaders, and most western media echoed the line. Attacks were launched on the credentials of the mission's Sudanese chairman. Criticisms of the mission's performance by one of its 165 members were headlined. Demands were made that the mission pull out in favor of UN intervention.

The critics presumably feared that the Arab observers would report that armed violence is no longer confined to the regime's forces, and the image of peaceful protests brutally suppressed by army and police is false. Homs and a few other Syrian cities are becoming like Beirut in the 1980s or Sarajevo in the 1990s, with battles between militias raging across sectarian and ethnic fault lines.
As for foreign military intervention, it has already started. It is not following the Libyan pattern since Russia and China are furious at the west's deception in the security council last year. They will not accept a new United Nations resolution that allows any use of force. The model is an older one, going back to the era of the cold war, before "humanitarian intervention" and the "responsibility to protect" were developed and often misused. Remember Ronald Reagan's support for the Contras, whom he armed and trained to try to topple Nicaragua's Sandinistas from bases in Honduras? For Honduras read Turkey, the safe haven where the so-called Free Syrian Army has set up.

Here too western media silence is dramatic. No reporters have followed up on a significant recent article by Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer who now writes for the American Conservative – a magazine that criticises the American military-industrial complex from a non-neocon position on the lines of Ron Paul, who came second in last week's New Hampshire Republican primary. Giraldi states that Turkey, a Nato member, has become Washington's proxy and that unmarked Nato warplanes have been arriving at Iskenderum, near the Syrian border, delivering Libyan volunteers and weapons seized from the late Muammar Gaddafi's arsenal. "French and British special forces trainers are on the ground," he writes, "assisting the Syrian rebels, while the CIA and US Spec Ops are providing communications equipment and intelligence to assist the rebel cause, enabling the fighters to avoid concentrations of Syrian soldiers …"

As the danger of full-scale war increases, Arab League foreign ministers are preparing to meet in Cairo this weekend to discuss the future of their Syrian mission. No doubt there will be western media reports highlighting remarks by those ministers who feel the mission has "lost credibility", "been duped by the regime" or "failed to stop the violence". Counter-arguments will be played down or suppressed.

In spite of the provocations from all sides the league should stand its ground. Its mission in Syria has seen peaceful demonstrations both for and against the regime. It has witnessed, and in some cases suffered from, violence by opposing forces. But it has not yet had enough time or a large enough team to talk to a comprehensive range of Syrian actors and then come up with a clear set of recommendations. Above all, it has not even started to fulfill that part of its mandate requiring it to help produce a dialogue between the regime and its critics. The mission needs to stay in Syria and not be bullied out.

It can't work

.
.
.
.
This is a tricky one, but one that I roughly endorsed back in late 2005, and conveyed to Iranian publishers, but got no response.

Iran faces many problems and the nuclear issue is a distraction to these challenges of the state.

The full potential of nuclear power for Iran is a long way off, by which time hydrogen power and other forms of alternative power may become more commercially viable and attractive. The Iranian state no doubt is already exploring these alternative options now.....Solar power, hydrogen power...etc.

Nuclear power, with the tragedy of Japan has acquired a poor reputation, and is not seen as such a cheap and clean source of power as before.

Abundant oil and gas will always be available for Iran, since oil and gas are natural minerals which are chemically produced by the earth, and thus not finite. Iran with its $930 billion PPP economy uses but a small proportion of its oil and gas resources, which is exploited with outdated capital equipment badly in need of significant capital investment.

Strategically speaking, beyond specific scientific and medical requirements, Iran is not badly in need of a civilian nuclear power sector. Kissinger and other high powered Republicans merely persuaded the last Shah to go for an expensive $90 billion civilian nuclear program because of the lobby activity of the USA nuclear industry, AND poorly/falsely? researched arguments that Iran's oil would run out by the year 2000 from the USA(Peak Oil).............the mullahs merely reinstated that program, in a far more modest scale than the last Shah, from the late 1980's, after initially shutting it down in 1979.

The nuclear program in Iran belongs to the Shah, and his legacy, the Republicans and America's nuclear industry.

On the other hand tiny geographical strip Israel is on a mission led by a minority in its security apparatus, for a fantasy called "Ahavat Eretz Israel"..........Iran in any shape or form might thus be a threat to that eventual desired outcome within Israel's security perceptions and goals.

The legitimate civilian nuclear issue is thus a mere platform on which to pick a fight with Iran, using the services of the USA. Attacking Iran, destroying Iran, dividing Iran. The process began in the late 1970's when the mullahs were brought into power by the USA/UK.......the result of which has since seriously de-legitimated the country especially in the West.

One thinks even if the mullahs were to shut down the modest civilian nuclear program now, tiny geographical strip Israel would find other excuses to pick a fight with mullah Iran......using the services of their Western networks, because as the writer below correctly surmises the real issue for Israel is not Iran's peaceful, legal, nuclear program, but Israel's desire to create Ahavat Eretz Israel, and thus become the undisputed geographical empire smack bang in the Middle East......surrounded by permanently destabilized quasi-states at war within, Somalia like.

To reinforce this fact, the fifth column of Islamic Fundamentalism in Iran is backed by a significant core of senior secret Jews within the state structure of Iran, who would ensure Israel's extremist strategic requirements were met and followed by mullah Iran to the strategic detriment of Iran.......as argued by me, before:

(i) Who is but Jew Ahmedinejad who shouts the loudest about Iran's nuclear rights, and the country's desire to acquire 20 more civilian nuclear reactors. At International platforms, for Israel, in the UN and around the world where he repeats this national slogan, whereas he should be explanation the very modest nature of Iran's civilian nuclear program, and the fact that it is closely monitored by the IAEA........through simple diplomatic language, and not firey rhetoric. Instead of deescalating he escalates the issue in tandem with the Western Jewish media. Then he makes firey speeches against Israel, even though the common people have elected him to solve the country's dire economic problems.

(ii) It is the drive of the secret Jews in Iran for ISRAEL who wish to block the straights of Hormuz, even though strategically it does not make sense from Iran's real point of view. Iran's real defense lye's in defending the Iranian landmass using the army, revolutionary guards and air-force, and its cities, and its strategic sites in Iran.

Also having shouted about the rights of every nation to have civilian nuclear power for so long, and allowed the IAEA to monitor some pretty sensitive security sights in Iran for Israel for 8 years, it may be difficult for the mullahs........mediocre, directed and stupid as they are to accept that they really don't need nuclear power after all in order to develop and become more prosperous.(my arguments submitted to them in 2005)

As argued more diplomatically back then, running a banana republic economy on the verge of collapse and being destroyed significantly by the USA for Israel is not worth the cost of having, or baring a minuscule civilian nuclear program which for many years will account for a small percentage of Iran's total power generation.

But the international platform is run by men who wave their willies, and where people do stupid things based on their ego's, fantasy and often criminality.

Not logic certainly.

________________________

How Iran Could Whip the United States and Israel Without Firing a Single Shot

By Mark R. Crovelli at Lew Rockwell and information clearing House.

To the outside observer, the intensifying conflict between the United States, Israel and Iran (along with some lesser bellicose nations, like Britain) may appear like a classic "prisoner’s dilemma." The best option for both sides seems to be to pacify their domestic constituencies by escalating the conflict, which will ensure the worst possible outcome. The Israeli right-wing government is seemingly beholden to its extremist and terrorist voting blocs, while the American government is seemingly fenced in by the Israel lobby, neoconservative candidates vying for the imperial throne, the US empire and merchants of death, and the Israeli government itself. Meanwhile, the semi-totalitarian Iranian government is seemingly obliged to "stand up" to the aggressive Americans and their "Zionist client state," lest it be seen as "soft" or "weak" by its own citizens.

As in a classic prisoner’s dilemma, both sides are ostensibly ensuring the worst possible outcome by focusing on their own domestic political agendas at the expense of the bigger picture and saner solutions.

If this conflict did indeed represent a classic prisoner’s dilemma, we would have little reason to think that the conflict will not worsen dramatically in the future. We would have to assume that both sides would continue to escalate the conflict to a point from which it would be completely impossible to pull back. World War III would be virtually assured.

Fortunately, however, the conflict between the United States, Israel and Iran is not a prisoner’s dilemma situation, because the Iranians hold a trump card that they can eventually use to unequivocally "win" the conflict. The trump card that the Iranians hold, and one prays that they are aware that they hold this card, is to completely dump their nuclear program.

Before you guffaw or snort at this suggestion, recall that this conflict between the Americans and Israelis on the one hand and the Iranians on the other is not about nuclear power or nuclear weapons. As the American intelligence agencies and the American government itself have assured us, to say nothing of the IAEA’s redundant assurances, there is absolutely no evidence that the Iranians are currently attempting to build or acquire nuclear weapons. Nor is the Iranian government an "existential threat" to Israel even if it did acquire nuclear weapons, as even the head former head of the Mossad has assured us. Nor still is there any need for the United States to aid in the defense of Israel, as Benjamin Netanyahu himself informed the American congress.

Bearing all this in mind, the conflict between the United States, Israel and Iran has absolutely nothing to do with nuclear power or nuclear weapons. Instead, the pointless conflict is all about cold, hard political power in the Middle East, with the Israelis hoping to secure a vice-like grip on the region.

The Iranian government itself is surely aware of this, and you can bet your last dollar that the Iranian people are aware of it too. The media in Iran is run by the government, which means that the government has undoubtedly informed the Iranian people that it is complying with IAEA regulations and that even the American intelligence agencies say that the Iranian government is not pursuing nuclear weapons.

Why should the Iranian people doubt the sincerity of the Iranian government’s pleas of innocence, when even the IAEA and American intelligence agencies assure them that the Iranian government is not pursuing nuclear weapons? More importantly, why should the rest of the Islamic world doubt the sincerity of the Iranian government’s pleas of innocence, when even the IAEA and American intelligence agencies assure them that the Iranian government is not pursuing nuclear weapons?

The answer is that they have absolutely no reason to doubt the Iranian government’s sincerity, and therein lies Iran’s trump card in this conflict. The Iranian government will not lose face with the rest of the Islamic world if it decides to terminate its nuclear program completely, as Israel and Washington demand, and diffuse the entire situation. Obama and Netenyahu would be so caught off guard by such a move that peace would be virtually assured, and the reputation of the Iranian government would be magnified a thousand fold in the region. The Iranian government would be viewed as a sane, peaceful and, most importantly, trustworthy government by the rest of the Islamic world.

Instead of toppling their regional rival, the Israelis would find themselves confronting a newly lionized giant. Forget the Arab Spring of 2011; the Iranian Spring of 2012 would transform the world.

The Americans and their European underlings would have little reason to continue their unjust and bellicose sanctions if the Iranians did precisely what was demanded of them. Continuation of the sanctions would only appear to be unjust and Iraq-like meddling in the Islamic world in the arrogant hope of "regime change" for Washington and Tel Aviv’s benefit. The reversal of sanctions, on the other hand, would almost instantaneously revive Iran’s economy, as petrodollars once again flooded the economy. Hillary Clinton and her chickenhawk confreres would no doubt still whine that the Iranians don’t "recognize" Israel, (as if it matters to the nuclear-armed Israelis whether another country "recognizes" them, whatever that even means), but poor Hillary would be at a complete loss as to what else to do.

For the sake of the entire world, especially including the hapless citizens if Iran, Israel, and the United States, one can only pray that the Iranians are politically savvy enough to recognize that they can win this conflict without even firing a shot. They don’t need to shut down the Straits of Hormuz, and they don’t need to fire a single Silkworm missile at an American aircraft carrier. All they need to do is shut down their nuclear programs in toto, and they will emerge from this conflict as the dominant and respected regional power of the Middle East.

Most importantly, they will thereby avert World War III and the spilling of much innocent blood.

International criminal nexus.

.
.
.
.

CHARLES TAYLOR WORKED FOR THE PENTAGON by aangirfan

Child soldier from Liberia

From the early 1980s onwards, Charles Taylor worked for the USA's Defence Intelligence Agency.

In January 2012, this was confirmed by the Pentagon, thanks to a Freedom of Information request from the Boston Globe.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2088010/Former-Liberian-dictator-Charles-Taylor-worked-U-S-intelligence-Africas-notorious-warlord.html#ixzz1jnYsRGR9

Taylor, former president of Liberia, is linked to the financing of 9 11.

At least two of these people are said to be spooks: Jemima Khan, Imran Khan, Naomi Campbell, Charles Taylor, Nelson Mandela, Gracha Machel, Quincy Jones, Mia Farrow and Tony Leung

Al Qaeda and Taylor worked together in the African diamond trade.

They raised millions of dollars for terrorist activities, according to UN war crimes documents. (Liberia's Taylor gave aid to Qaeda, UN probe finds - The Boston Globe)

"Taylor ... was a business partner with Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson...

"According to British and Israeli intelligence sources, Taylor enabled Al Qaeda to launder blood diamonds for cash through Liberia...

"Taylor and Victor Bout had powerful interests in the United States: a combination of the Christian Right and ... organizations like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), both of which ignored and continue to ignore Israeli organized crime connections to Al Qaeda and terrorism." (WHO SELLS THE WEAPONS OF WAR?)

Liberia is run by the CIA and Pentagon, reportedly.

Website for this image

Arnt Breivik was the World Food Programme's Country Director in Liberia. (Cached)

Anders Breivik reportedly visited a Serbian 'crusader commander' in Monrovia, Liberia.

There he reportedly joined the Knights Templar, who 'are planning attacks in Europe'.

(From liberal roots to extremist massacre)

Allegedly, over nine years, he was involved in writing, planning, weapons procurement and bomb-making - without arousing suspicion.

Reportedly, he mentions plans to celebrate completion of his operation by enjoying the company of high-class prostitutes.

(From liberal roots to extremist massacre )

LIBERIA?

The Embassy Bombings are linked to Liberia.

AHMED GHAILANI was reported to have been in the Liberian capital, Monrovia, in 2001, with another suspect in the embassy bombings, a Kenyan man Fazul Abdullah Mohammed.

(Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani profile)

The UK's Observer newspaper (Bin Laden's $20m African 'blood diamond' deals.) reported in 2002 that the two men allegedly ran an al-Qaeda/CIA financing operation, trading "blood diamonds".

Reportedly, Ghailani and Mohammed were lavishing money on women and alcohol.

Liberia was run by Charles Taylor who was said to be a friend of the CIA and a friend of al Qaeda.



LIBERIA is an important base for the CIA and its friends.

"Victor Bout was Liberian dictator Charles Taylor's primary arms and diamond smuggler.

"Bout and his associates were given Liberian diplomatic passports and, with Taylor's blessing and protection, they registered a number of their front companies in Monrovia, the Liberian capital.

"Taylor ... was a business partner with Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson...

"According to British and Israeli intelligence sources, Taylor also enabled Al Qaeda to launder blood diamonds for cash through Liberia.


Liberia

"Liberia and neighboring Sierra Leone were where Israeli mobsters engaged in business ... under the full protection of the Israeli Likud government.

"Before Likud began purging Mossad of experienced intelligence officers with ties to the Israeli Labor Party, the Israeli-Al Qaeda diamond financial connection in West Africa was being pointed out by those officers as suicidal for Israeli interests.

"However, Taylor and Bout had powerful interests in the United States: a combination of the Christian Right and pro-Likud organizations like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), both of which ignored and continue to ignore Israeli organized crime connections to Al Qaeda and terrorism."

(aangirfan: WHO SELLS THE WEAPONS OF WAR?)

So, they are all friends - the Pentagon, al Qaeda, the Jewish Mafia, the Christian Right, various tyrants?