Russia Today

Recent Israeli military training exercises have raised fears that Israel could initiate an attack on Iran – potentially even a nuclear attack. Israel may be motivated by fears that Iran’s nuclear capabilities could soon surpass Israel’s. Can the U.S. use its influence to persuade Israel to avoid such a course of action? Priya Sridhar talks to investigative reporter Wayne Madsen.

Lundi 30 novembre, au moment du repas de midi, les étudiant(e)s de l’université de Téhéran ont refusé de manger pour dénoncer l’arrestation de plusieurs de leurs camarades et ont, avec les plateaux-repas, écrit “Mehrdad Bozorg” (le nom d’un étudiant arrêté) dans la cour de l’université.

The below clip is a serious update to the post  Al Qaeda Training Video. You won’t see this in the MSM or on FOX. It is from the BBC.

BBC butt bomb

“We have the capacity, and Iran is vulnerable,” insisted Charles F. Wald, a retired U.S. Air Force general who served as deputy commander of the U.S. European Command. “It’s totally false that we cannot attack Iran’s nuclear sites.”

There is only one nuclear power station under construction in Iran, and there are none that are operational.

Russia plans to start up Iran’s first nuclear power station in March 2010 to coincide with the Iranian New Year, two sources closely involved with the project told Reuters.

Cross-posted from the Huffington Post:

Only a few weeks after US-Iran diplomacy began in earnest, it seems to be heading towards a premature ending. Rather than tensions reduction, the world has witnessed the opposite. Iran is refusing to accept a fuel swap deal brokered by the IAEA, the IAEA has passed a resolution rebuking Iran, and Tehran has responded by approving a plan to build ten more nuclear facilities.

With the potential end of at least this phase of diplomacy, fears of a disastrous Israeli attack on Iran are on the rise once more. But contrary to Washington’s official line, America is capable of preventing Israel from initiating a war that would further destabilize the Middle East.

Conventional wisdom in Washington reads that the United States has little influence over Israel, particularly on the issue of Iran’s nuclear program, since Israel maintains that it is an existential threat.

Washington has utilized the perception of Israeli immunity to international pleas to pressure China to rebuke Tehran. According to the Washington Post, National Security Council officials recently traveled to Beijing and used the Israeli card to get the Chinese on board.

The Chinese were told that Israel regards Iran’s nuclear program as an “existential issue and that countries that have an existential issue don’t listen to other countries,” according to a senior administration official. The implication was clear: Israel could bomb Iran, leading to a crisis in the Persian Gulf region and almost inevitably problems over the very oil China needs to fuel its economic juggernaut.”

It is questionable that the Chinese were moved by the notion that Israel cannot be influenced by the international community on this issue. Mindful of the strength of US-Israeli relations, it is hardly convincing that Washington cannot influence Israel’s actions towards Iran.

Indeed, there is an important precedent in which Washington successfully prevented Israel from taking military action even when Israel itself had been attacked.

On August 2, 1990, almost a year after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Iron Curtain divide, Iraq invaded Kuwait. Within months, the George H. W. Bush administration carefully assembled a coalition of states under the UN flag and defeated the Iraqi army and restored Kuwait’s ruling family, the House of Sabah. The Bush senior administration saw particular value in ensuring that the international coalition contained numerous Arab states. But to get the Arab’s to join a war alongside the US and against another Arab power, Israel needed to be kept out of the coalition.

This turned out to be a tricky issue, particularly when Saddam Hussein hurled thirty-four Scud missiles at Tel Aviv and other Israeli cities, in an obvious attempt to lure Israel into the war. Then-National Security Advisor, General Brent Scowcroft, told me in an interview that the United States told Israel “in the strongest possible words” that it needed to keep itself out of the Iraq operation because Israeli retaliation would cause the collapse of Washington’s alliance against Iraq.

For the government of Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, this was a very tough decision. Saddam’s missile attacks damaged Israel’s public morale; the country’s otherwise lively and noisy capital quickly turned into a ghost town. Bush sent Undersecretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger to Israel to assure Israeli leaders that the United States was doing all it could to destroy the Iraqi missile launchers.

But neither the Israel Defense Forces nor the Ministry of Defense was convinced. Instead, a feeling prevailed among Israel’s leaders that Washington was untrustworthy and that it could not be relied upon when it came to Israel’s existence. Bad blood was created between Israel and the United States, according to Efraim Halevi, the former head of the Mossad. Washington’s protection of Israel was ineffective, and the image that Israel was relying on the United States for protection was hard to stomach for ordinary Israelis. Shamir’s decision to accommodate the Americans was extremely unpopular, because it was believed that it “would cause irreparable damage to Israel’s deterrent capabilities,” Halevi told me. To make matters worse, people around Shamir felt that the United States did not reward Israel for, in their view, effectively enabling the coalition to remain intact by refusing to retaliate against Iraq.

Just as Israeli retaliation against Iraq in 1991 would have been devastating for the US, an Israeli preventive attack against Iran today would spell disaster for US national security.

In July 2008, Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the American Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned against any Israeli military action against Iran, saying that the Middle East would become “more unstable” and that it would put US forces under much stress, indicating that an Israeli attack on Iran would inevitably suck the US into war with Iran. “From the United States’ perspective, the United States’ military perspective, in particular, opening up a third front right now would be extremely stressful on us,” Mullen told reporters.

A year later, Mullen’s line was echoed by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who warned that a military attack would only be a “temporary solution.” “There’s a lot of talk about a military effort to take out their nuclear capabilities, but, in my view, it would only be a temporary solution,” Gates told reporters in September 2009.

Beyond the impact an Israeli attack on Iran would have on US national security, the first casualty of war with Iran would be the Iranian pro-democracy movement. Having shown great courage in challenging the Ahmadinejad government, the last thing Iran’s pro-democracy activists need is for Iran to get embroiled in a military confrontation with Israel and the US. Their struggle for democracy will be infinitely more difficult in the midst of war.

Should diplomacy with Iran fail, and should Israel seek to attack Iran, America will have plenty of reasons to prevent such a disaster from taking place. And history shows that contrary to conventional wisdom, Washington has the ability to prevent Israel from taking actions that would endanger America.

Follow Trita Parsi on Twitter: www.twitter.com/tparsi

Despite a lousy economy and busted budget, Iran’s “parliament” still finds a way to allocate $20 million to foreign Islamic militants.  Hezbollah and Hamas are the likeliest beneficiaries.  From the Associated Press:

TEHRAN, Iran — Iran’s parliament passed a law on Sunday earmarking $20 million to support militant groups opposing the West and investigate alleged U.S. and British plots against the Islamic Republic.

The legislation is widely seen as a response to Western criticism of Iran’s violent crackdown against protesters following the disputed June presidential election. Lawmakers started debating the outline of the bill in August when Iran’s hardline leaders were fending off allegations that security forces had tortured opposition activists detained during the demonstrations.

The text of the legislation says the money is to “support progressive currents that resist illegal activities by the governments of the U.S. and Britain.” Iranian officials often use such terms to describe militant groups.

It was not immediately clear which groups would receive funding from Iran, but Tehran already backs the Islamic militants Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

The bill also taps funds to “confront plots and unjust restrictions” by the Washington and London against Tehran and to disclose “human rights abuses by the two countries.”

There’s your Islamic Republic for you.  Don’t help your suffering people or small businesses.  Just spend all your money on proxy wars in Yemen, uranium enrichment, sharia bank investments, and now renewed stipends for Hamas and Hezbollah.  And the ayatollahs talk about compassion and mercy.

***Please note our disclosures and terms of use here. >>>>

Good Morning!  Here’s a few items of interest on our morning paddle through the news. 

 Defiant and Blustery.  That’s how risk consultant Cliff Kupchan describes Iran’s announcement it will expand its nuclear program after the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency censured the country Nov 27.  Bloomberg article here.

Jobsapalooza.  The WSJ reports on widely differing views between U.S. biz and U.S. govt as the two prepare to meet this week for a jobs summit.

Dubai Doo Doo.  Chatter continues on Dubai and its state-controlled holding company bursting at the seams with $59b in liabilities.  As Bloomberg reports, the Dubai government is on the record saying it has not provided a direct government guarantee on the debt and that creditors will have to help in the restructuring.

The West goes wobbly on Iran.

Standard, by Matthias Küntzel – On November 18, Iran’s foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki rejected a proposal that his country should export some 70 percent of its low-enriched uranium for further processing abroad. On November 20, the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany met in Brussels and urged Iran to reconsider. “I continue to hold out the prospect that they may decide to walk through this door,” explained Barack Obama, though he noted at the same time, “Over the next several weeks, we will be developing a package of potential steps .  .  . that would indicate our seriousness to Iran.” Russia’s foreign ministry, as usual, contradicted him: “There is currently no discussion on working out additional sanctions against Iran.”

So was this merely the latest manifestation of the same fruitless maneuvering that has gone on every year since the struggle over Iran’s nuclear weapons began in 2003? Not at all. It was not the ploys of the Iranians that provoked astonishment at the most recent negotiations in Geneva and Vienna, but rather the attitude of the United States. Read more here…

Iran, Afpak and hardening US foreign policy.

December tomorrow, a good time to stop and have a look into the near future. Things have been tightening this fall, and a lot of uncertainties will play out next year. A few speculations are;

1. Iran.
Probably airstrikes on nuke sites in late spring. Lots of harsh language, but no serious retaliation. Maybe a new green revolution in the midst of this, making a different political landscape and a real game-changer.

2. Afpak.
Split in two. Afghanistan: Troop rise, causualty rise, achievement of some kind of goal mapped out this week from the WH. Then slowly fading out of current affairs. Pakistan completely unpredictable. Games with China, India, US, Iran – internal powerstruggles and boiling civil society. No telling, might contain surprises.

3. China.
The dragon still rising, puffing some fire once in a while. Expansionist probably not. Crackdown on internal tensions most certainly. Economic assertion on the global scene – but mostly minding their own business and empire.

4. US Foreign Policy.
Obvious change of tone. The hawks gain influence. Back to realpolitik and equilibrium. A clear “no” a few places, maybe even some punishment. The secretary of state might be a rising star. Hopes and dreams set on hold. The chess games starts to unfold in Eurasia.

5. Russia.
Who knows. Probably no public stand-off between the modernist and the cold warrior, but ethnic tensions might provoke some polarizing actions and political currents. The bet is on Medvevev gaining strength towards elections 2012.

6. Domestics.
Not directly fp, but still; Health care passes, no winners or losers. Unemployment a bit higher, then eases next fall. Education and energy troddles along, approval polls according to jobrates and weekly newscycles. Saving the good stuff for election run-ups in 2012.

7. Wildcards.
India, Latin America, African safe-havens. EU politics. No clear boilers, but a sudden change of behaviour from the worlds only superpower could spark all sorts of effects – good and bad. Just have to wait and see.

And of course, the mid-terms and 500 seats on the ballot should be a dominating feature of 2010 in the shows and columns. All in all, a crowded 2010, with possible iran bombings and changing FP on top.

¿Necesitás un voto? No te preocupes, siempre es posible conseguir a alguien que esté en venta…sólo es cuestión de conocer el precio. Y para el regateo nadie mejor que el amigo Mahmud Ahmadinejad, un tipo que consigue lo que quiere al menor precio posible…

Recientemente se destapó que Irán compró el voto de las Islas Salomón, un archipielago de unas 900 islas y unos 600.000 habitantes aproximadamente a cambio de 200.000 dólares y ayuda tecnologica.

Desde entonces, este pequeño estado modificó su actitud respecto a Israel llegando incluso a votar a favor del (des)Informe Goldstone.

¿Sorprende a alguien esta noticia? Si la banda de los Ayatollas son capaces de organizar un fraude electoral de impactantes proporciones en su propio país, ¿por qué no iban a exportar un éxito?…Lo sorprendente es el precio de Islas Salomón…

Communiqué du Parti Communiste-Ouvrier d’Iran, Organisation à l’Etranger – Allemagne, 29 novembre 2009 :

La journée annuelle du mouvement étudiant en Iran, le 16 Azar (7 décembre 2009) apparaît dans une phase où la République Islamique est sous la pression massive du mouvement révolutionnaire des humains d’Iran.

Les étudiants ont différentes préoccupations. Ils protestent pour la liberté et contre l’arrestation de leurs camarades.

Les militants du mouvement étudiant sont conduits dans des lieux inconnus, torturés, battus et emprisonnés par les troupes de choc, les agents de renseignements et la police de la République Islamique. Cela se passe dans les rues, dans les universités et dans les habitations d’étudiants. Dans les universités, des caméras de surveillance ont été installées.

Une des revendications des étudiants est l’abolition de l’apartheid de genre. Le gouvernement islamique a pour but la séparation des étudiantes des étudiants. Des transports en commun spéciaux (bus) ont été mis en place.

Les étudiants protestent aussi contre leur situation générale actuelle.

Le régime islamique renforce la pression sur les militants du mouvement  étudiant. Il essaie en vain d’empêcher les protestations étudiantes, en maintenant ceux qui avaient été arrêtés auparavant en détention et en procédant à de nouvelles arrestations de militants, pour les effrayer. Des centaines ont d’ores et déjà été arrêtés. Les “Comités de Discipline” ont déjà, tant dans les universités d’Etat que dans les universités libres, menacé des étudiants d’exclusions de longue durée ou même définitives.

Parmi ceux qui sont à ce jour déjà emprisonnés ou ont été menacés, nous connaissons les noms de :

Université de Téhéran : Mehrdad Bozorg, Sorena Hashemi, Farzan Raufi, Ehsan Dolatshah, Sina Shokuhi, Alborz Zahedi, …

Université Allameh Taba Tabai : Hamid Qahwetschian, Alireza Musawi, Ahmad Mirtaheri, Alireza Zargar, Amir Kazempur, Yaser Mohammadi

Université Amir Kabir: Abbas Hakimzadeh

Université de Chiraz: Neda eskandari, Khadijeh Qahremani

Université du Mazandaran: Nematallah Ramezani, Siawash Rezaian, Behnam Farazmand, Sudabe Saidi, Milad Hosseini-Keshtan, Ali Nazari, Siawash Safawi, Ali Dinari, Maziar Yazdani Niya, Showane Merrikhi, Ali Abbasi, Rahman Yaqubi

Université Khaje Nasir: Ali-Parwiz Mahammadi, Soheyl Mahammadi

Université Libre de Tabriz : Rsul Alinejad, Behruz Farid

Université du Gilan: 20 étudiants ont été convoqués par le “Comité de Discipline”.

Université Libre d’Ahvaz : 100 étudiants ont été convoqués par le “Comité de Discipline”.

Université Libre de Najaf Abad : 50 étudiants ont été convoqués par le “Comité de Discipline”.

Nous appelons à tous et toutes pour condamner la politique criminelle et inhumaine de la République Islamique en Iran en général et ses représailles, meurtres, arrestations, tortures et violences contre le mouvement étudiant en particulier.

Parti Communiste-Ouvrier d’Iran, Organisation à l’Étranger – Allemagne

Il New York Times pubblica una serie di foto dal titolo “Iran, al di la degli stereotipi”.

Ce n’è per tutti, dalle donne senza velo, ai gay fino al ragazzo con il poster di Kurt Cobain in camera.

Dedicated to honoring and learning from Iranians.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad souhaite que l’Iran puisse produire de l’uranium enrichi à 20%. Ces projets inquiètent la communauté internationale, et notamment la France, qui évoque de «nouvelles sanctions économiques». Réagir Libération.fr Le président iranien Mahmoud Ahmadinejad devant le parlement à Téhéran le 15 novembre 2009 (AFP Atta Kenare) La politique de dialogue et de main tendue entre l’Iran et la communauté internationale a-t-elle vécu? Après une nouvelle provocation du régime de Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ce dimanche, il est permis de se poser la question. L’Iran a en effet annoncé qu’il projetait de construire dix nouvelles usines d’enrichissement d’uranium et de produire de l’uranium enrichi à 20%. Ces annonces surviennent après une résolution adoptée vendredi par l’Agence internationale de l’énergie atomique (AIEA), demandant notamment la «suspension» de la construction du nouveau site d’enrichissement de Fordo, dont l’existence – jusqu’alors clandestine – a été révélée en septembre. En réponse, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a ordonné la construction d’usines d’enrichissement d’uranium sur cinq sites déjà choisis. Il a aussi demandé de rechercher des sites pour cinq autres usines. L’objectif serait de produire 20.000 mégawatts d’énergie nucléaire, nécessitant 500.000 centrifugeuses. Technologie duale Le chef de l’Agence iranienne de l’énergie atomique, Ali Akbar Salehi, a précisé que ces usines seraient construites «au cœur des montagnes» et «dans plusieurs endroits en Iran (…) pour prendre en compte leur sécurité en cas d’attaque». Pour l’heure, l’Iran possède deux usines d’enrichissement d’uranium. Celle de Natanz (centre), qui compte 8000 centrifugeuses, et celle de Fordo, près de Qom, qui en compterait 3000. Ces sites permettent d’obtenir de l’uranium enrichi, une technologie que l’on considère comme duale, c’est-à-dire qu’elle peut être à la fois militaire et civile. Concrètement, l’Iran possède surtout de l’uranium enrichi à 3,5%, et dont l’usage ne peut être que civil. Mais les sites de Fordo ou Natanz permettent d’obtenir de l’uranium enrichi à 20% (en théorie destinés à un réacteur de recherche médical situé à Téhéran, selon les autorités iraniennes), une étape vers le nucléaire militaire (on considère qu’il faut de l’uranium enrichi à près de 93% pour obtenir une arme atomique). Protestations Depuis l’échec du processus de négociations avec le groupe du 5+1, prévoyant d’échanger l’uranium iranien faiblement enrichi (3,5%) contre du combustible nucléaire (enrichi à 20%), l’Iran ne cesse de proclamer sa volonté de développer ses propres capacités d’enrichissement d’uranium. Les annonces iraniennes n’ont pas manqué de faire réagir certains membres de la communauté internationale. La Maison Blanche a prévenu que «le temps presse pour que l’Iran réponde aux inquiétudes grandissantes de la communauté internationale sur son programme nucléaire». Berlin et Londres, également engagées dans les négociations avec Téhéran, ont aussi fait part de leur «préoccupation» et demandé à l’Iran de remplir ses obligations. Le ministre français des Affaires étrangères Bernard Kouchner a lui jugé «très dangereux» que l’Iran «s’entête à ignorer les demandes» de l’AIEA, dans un entretien au Figaro. Chaud et froid «Les facteurs de déstabilisation pour la région sont immenses» avec «un risque majeur de course à l’arme de nucléaire et à la prolifération», a insisté de son côté le ministre de la Défense Hervé Morin. Selon lui, il faudra «probablement s’engager vers de nouvelles sanctions économiques si l’Iran refuse de rentrer» dans de nouvelles «discussions». Après ce raidissement, la diplomatie iranienne s’est comme bien souvent efforcée de rattraper le coup en tenant un discours plus apaisant ce lundi. Le président du Parlement iranien, Ali Larijani, a ainsi estimé «qu’il existe encore une opportunité diplomatique et il est dans leur intérêt (les Occidentaux) de l’utiliser».

This interview sort of makes one wonder why we bothered to negotiate with North Korea, Iran, and Iraq with those worthless pieces of paper from the previous administration.

Talk about a softball interview, was Bolton paying for the damn thing?

You have to give the crazy reaction award to Iran though, they seemed a bit peeved by the latest IAEA report, and so naturally have announced that they will be building 10 new nuclear enrichment plants.  The announcement may be just bluster though, as Iran will later scale back their announcement, and then seek praise for “only” wanting to open up three more enrichment facilities.  Or maybe none at all, just think of all the credit they would be due then.

I guess most of us wouldn’t be quite so worried about what Iran planned on doing were it not for Iranian government rallies like this one.

[A buon intenditor ... ] sulla ‘Twitter Revolution’, prima di parlare leggere questi quattro post su Social Text.

Att framförallt USA vill åt Irans naturtillgångar har varit känt länge för den som följt med i politiken. Men att massmedia nu används åter en gång är beklagligt. Hysterin skapad runt ett sk. valfusk av amerikansk och israelisk underrättelsetjänst var den senaste i raden nu i somras – innan kärnvapenanklagelserna tog fart.

Allt i syfte att smutskasta Iran och försöka få allmänheten med sig för ett nytt fullskaligt krig.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXboTTh8jXA

ETT EXEMPEL: VINKLAD NYHETSRAPPORT

Amerikanska medier kör dagligen sina välplanerade nyhetssändningar om Iran och deras “illvilja” att rätta sig in i ledet och lyda. Man varvar med extremt oviktiga inslag om t.ex Tiger Woods bilkrasch och hävdar att detta vore sk “breaking news”. Under tiden händer andra otroligt hemska saker som ej rapporteras, utförda av USA i t.ex Afghanistan där civila får sätta livet till i kriget mot terrorismen pga deras “drones”, ett oerhört omänskligt och fegt vapen som styrs från “hemmets lugna vrå” i USA eller hundratals mil från offren.

Massmedia är dock enligt mig det farligaste vapnet idag – och det används flitigt, omoraliskt för maktelitens egen vinning. Detta är heller inget nytt men det måste påpekas för det verkar som om ingen av “oss” bryr sig ett skit. Vi svenskar har ett alldeles för stark auktoritetstro alternativt rädsla som samma auktoritet listigt smetat ut som en hinna av ont slem över oss. Det är i själva verket som så att det är etablissemanget som är oerhört rädda för oss medborgare. Rädda och nervösa att folket ska komma dom sanningen på spåret. Att vi ska börja luska, gräva och ifrågasätta.

Varför tror ni man spelar på psykologiska faktorer för att få så många som möjligt att ta det giftiga vaccinet mot svininfluensan? I skolorna runt om i Sverige sprids det som en löpeld att man är både det ena och det andra om man inte vill ta vaccinet. Ungdomarna blir drabbade av grupptryck inte bara av sina sk. skolkamrater utan även av lärare och skolsköterskor.

En fråga till dig som läser: Har du någonsin tidigare hört eller sett så mycket smutskastning mot konspirationsteoretiker som det sista halvåret från svensk massmedia??

Nej, jag tänkte väl det.  Dessa kritiskt tänkande individer gör det grävande jobbet som journalisterna borde göra men inte gör och är därför oerhört viktiga för att ge svenska folket riktiga nyheter om hur samhället styrs och manipuleras. Journalisterna ser konspirationsteoretikerna naturligtvis som ett hot av den enkla anledningen att dom riskerar framstå som maniska lögnare som bedyrar och sprider all propaganda för att inte riskera sitt eget skinn. Det finns alldeles för få äkta grävande orädda journalister i Sverige vilket är mycket beklagligt!

Etablissemanget har på sin agenda haft klara direktiv där en ren variant av “objection handling” stått på dagordningen. Dvs alla oliktänkande individer och grupper skall belysas negativt i mainstream media, förlöjligas och viftas bort som foliehattar. Det etablissemanget har förstått är att gemene svensk litar mer och mer på alternativ media, som i fler fall bevisat sig gång på gång ge folket dom riktiga och oberoende nyheterna. Detta anses vara ett STORT HOT mot demokratin som det så fint heter (Ta bara vaken.se som vill ha en ny 9/11 utredning som ett exempel), och demokrati är sannerligen en perfekt härskarstruktur där dom smarta kan bedriva sina vidrigheter under radarn utan massmedial bevakning där storägarna tappat sitt solidariska ansvar och journalisterna är rädda om jobbet.

DEN SOM INTE KAN SE OCH FATTA DETTA…PLEASE WAKE UP!!

“Ta del av massmedias nyheter och tänk helt tvärtom så kommer du åtminstone närmare sanningen. Jämför dessa med vad alternativa medier rapporterar också, men glöm aldrig att det finns alltid en tredje alternativ förklaring till alla världsliga ting” som min gamla grekiska filosofi professor sa till mig…