Showing posts with label Ashton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ashton. Show all posts

Friday, 21 November 2014

Meetings on Iran’s Nuclear Program Continue as Deadline May be Extended


Local Editor

As six world powers and Iran race to meet a Monday deadline for resolving a 12-year-old dispute over Iran's nuclear program, officials close to the talks said on Thursday the deadline may be extended from Monday until March because of sharp disagreements between Tehran and world powers.

Zarif, Kerry, AshtonUS officials allege the agreement “should slow the Iranian nuclear program enough that it would take Iran at least a year to make enough material for a nuclear bomb if it decided to ignore the accord.”

“Our goal is to shut off each pathway sufficient that we know we have a breakout time of a minimum of a year,” Secretary of State John Kerry said last month.

This comes as a trilateral meeting between Iranian and US foreign ministers and the EU coordinator in Cobourg Hotel had ended after two hours of negotiations.

According to IRNA, John Kerry arrived in Vienna from Paris to join the Vienna 8 negotiations, which is supposed to be the last round of talks to lead to the signing of a comprehensive agreement by November 24.

The axis of Kerry-Zarif-Ashton talks will be deciding over the schedule of this round of negotiations as well as efforts made to resolve the remainder of disputes over Iran’s uranium enrichment and ways for lifting the anti-Iranian sanctions.

Kerry, FabiusAccording to the US Department of State, Kerry had before these talks been engaged in bilateral and trilateral negotiations with the Iranian nuclear negotiation team to be informed about the latest stands of Tehran in Vienna 8.

Before his trip to Vienna, Kerry paid a visit to the French capital, Paris, where he met with foreign ministers of France and Saudi Arabia.

In a joint appearance before reporters, Kerry and Fabius expressed hope that progress could be made but acknowledged that some obstacles remained in the way of an accord. “We hope that the gaps that exist -- and they do exist -- can be closed,” Kerry said.

Sources close to the Iranian negotiating team say the main stumbling block in the way of resolving the Western dispute over Iran’s nuclear energy program remains to be the removal of all the bans imposed on the country, and not the number of centrifuges or the level of uranium enrichment.

Source: Websites
21-11-2014 - 10:35 Last updated 21-11-2014 - 10:35 

Related Articles
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Saturday, 27 September 2014

Gazans were slaughtered. The EU has no comments



Produced by Rinaldo Francesca.

For a full transcript with links please visit:


Music by Kevin McLeod, available at http://incompetech.com/
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Friday, 6 June 2014

A DIPLOMATIC DEFEAT TO ISRAEL AND THE JEWISH LOBBY

Is Jewish power falling apart?
Haaretz reported yesterday that  India, China and Turkey called on the international community to throw its support behind the new Palestinian government. Russia followed suit several hours later. European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton also issued a statement calling the formation of the unity government "an important step" the process of Palestinian reconciliation.
Ashton said: "we welcome the appointment of a government of independent personalities and the declaration by President Abbas that this new government is committed to the principle of the two state solution based on the 1967 borders, to the recognition of Israel's legitimate right to exist, to non-violence and to the respect of previous agreements," the statement read. "The EU's engagement with the new Palestinian government will be based on its adherence to these policies and commitments."
The USA also supported the new Palestinian Government.  “Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu took his confrontation with Washington over the new Palestinian government up a notch on Tuesday, saying he was "deeply troubled" by the United States' decision to maintain ties with the new unity government. Despite his protests, however, a groundswell of recognition for Abbas' government has rolled in from around the world.”
Speaking with the Associated Press, Netanyahu urged Washington to tell Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas that his alliance with the Hamas militant group is unacceptable.  I guess that no one picks BB’s phone call in Washington anymore.
It is hard to believe, but even the French Occupied Government  issued a statement supporting the unity government.
It may be possible that by now, more than a  few world leaders happen to identify the Jewish State and its lobby as the biggest threat to world peace.
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Tuesday, 27 May 2014

Russia’s Rise To Global Power — Paul Craig Roberts



May 25 2014 "ICH" - Western propaganda about events in Ukraine has two main purposes. One is to cover up, or to distract from, Washington’s role in overthrowing the elected democratic government of Ukraine. The other is to demonize Russia.

The truth is known, but truth is not a part of the Western TV and print media. The intercepted telephone call between US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt reveals the two coup plotters discussing which of Washington’s stooges will be installed as Washington’s person in the new puppet government. 

The intercepted telephone call between Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet and EU foreign policy official Catherine Ashton revealed suspicions, later confirmed by independent reports, that the sniper fire that killed people on both sides of the Kiev protests came from the Washington-backed side of the conflict.

To summarize, when Washington orchestrated in 2004 the “Orange Revolution” and the revolution failed to deliver Ukraine into Western hands, Washington, according to Victoria Nuland, poured $5 billion into Ukraine over the next ten years. The money went to politicians, whom Washington groomed, and to non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that operate as educational, pro-democracy, and human rights groups, but in fact are Washington’s fifth columns.

When President Yanukovych, after considering the costs and benefits, rejected the invitation for Ukraine to join the European Union, Washington sent its well-funded NGOs into action. Protests broke out in Kiev demanding that Yanukovych change his decision and join the EU.

These protests were peaceful, but soon ultra-nationalists and neo-nazis appeared and introduced violence into the protests. The protest demands changed from “join the EU” to “overthrow Yanukovych and his government.”

Political chaos ensued. Washington installed a puppet government, which Washington represented as a democratic force against corruption. However, the ultra-nationalists and neo-nazis, such as the Right Sector, began intimidating members of Washington’s stooge government. Perhaps in response, Washington’s stooges began issuing threats against the Russian speaking population in Ukraine.

Areas of southern and eastern Ukraine are former Russian territories added to Ukraine by Soviet leaders. Lenin added Russian areas to Ukraine in early years of the Soviet Union, and Khrushchev added Crimea in 1954. The people in these Russian areas, alarmed by the destruction of Soviet war memorials commemorating the Red Army’s liberation of Ukraine from Hitler, by the banning of Russian as an official language, and by physical assaults on Russian-speaking people in Ukraine broke out in protests. Crimea voted its independence and requested reunification with Russia, and so have the Donetsk and Luhansk regions.

Washington, its EU puppets, and the Western media have denied that the votes in Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk are sincere and spontaneous. Instead, Washington alleges that the protests leading to the votes and the votes themselves were orchestrated by the Russian government with the use of bribes, threats, and coercion. Crimea was said to be a case of Russian invasion and annexation.

These are blatant lies, and the foreign observers of the elections know it, but they have no voice in the Western media, which is a Ministry of Propaganda for Washington. Even the once proud BBC lies for Washington.

Washington has succeeded in controlling the explanation of the “Ukrainian crisis.” The unified peoples in Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk have been branded “terrorists.” In contrast, the Ukrainian neo-nazis have been elevated to membership in the “democratic coalition.” Even more amazing, the neo-nazis are being described in the Western media as “liberators” of the protest regions from “terrorists.” Most likely, the Russophobic neo-nazi militias are becoming Washington’s stooge government’s army, because so many units of the Ukrainian military have been unwilling to fire on peaceful protestors.

The question before us is how will Russia’s leader, President Putin, play this game. His hesitancy or reluctance to accept Donetsk and Luhansk again as part of Russia is used by the Western media to make him look weak and intimidated. Within Russia this will be used against Putin by Washington-funded GGOs and by Russian nationalists.

Putin understands this, but Putin also understands that Washington wants him to confirm their demonized portrait of him. If Putin accepts requests from Donetsk and Luhansk to return to Russia, Washington will repeat its allegation that Russia invaded and annexed. Most likely, Putin is not weak and intimidated, but for good reasons Putin does not want to give Washington more propaganda to employ in Europe.

Washington’s press for sanctions against Russia has an obstacle in Germany. The German Chancellor, Merkel, is Washington’s vassal, but Germany’s foreign Minister, Frank Walter Steinmeier and German industry are no friends of sanctions. 

In addition to Germany’s dependence on natural gas from Russia, thousands of German companies are doing business in Russia, and the employment of several hundred thousands of Germans is dependent on economic relations with Russia. Former German Chancellors, Helmut Schmidt and Gerhard Schroeder, have slammed Merkel for her subservience to Washington. Merkel’s position is weak, because she has stupidly put herself in the position of sacrificing the interests of Germany to Washington’s interests.

Putin, who has demonstrated that he is not the typical dumb Western politician, sees in the conflict between Washington’s pressure on Germany and Germany’s real interests a chance to break up NATO and the EU. If Germany decides, as Yanukovych did, that Germany’s interests lie in its economic relations with Russia, not in being a puppet state of Washington, can Washington overthrow the government of Germany and install a more reliable puppet?

Perhaps Germany has had enough of Washington. Still occupied by Washington’s troops 69 years after the end of World War II, Germany has had its educational practices, its history, its foreign policy, and its membership in the EU and euro mechanism coerced by Washington. If Germans have any national pride, and as a very recently unified peoples, they might still have some national pride, these impositions by Washington are too much to accept.

The last thing Germany wants is a confrontation, economic or military, with Russia. Germany’s vice chancellor, Sigmar Gabriel, said that it “was certainly not smart to create the impression in Ukraine that it had to decide between Russia and the EU.”

If the Russian government decides that Washington’s control of Ukraine, or whatever part remains after secession, is an unacceptable strategic threat to Russia, the Russian military will seize Ukraine, historically part of Russia. If Russia occupies Ukraine, there is nothing Washington can do but resort to nuclear war. NATO countries, with their own existence at stake, will not agree to this option.

Putin can take the Ukraine back whenever he wants and turn his back on the West, a declining corrupt entity mired in depression and looting by the capitalist class. The 21st century belongs to the East, to China and India. The enormous expanse of Russia sits above both of these most populous of all countries.

Russia can rise to power with the East. There is no reason for Russia to beg the West for acceptance. The basis for US foreign policy are the Brzezinski and Wolfowitz doctrines, which state that Washington must prevent the rise of Russia. Washington has no good will toward Russia and will hamper Russia at every opportunity. As long as Washington controls Europe, Russia has no prospects of being a part of the West, unless Russia becomes Washington’s puppet state, like Germany, Britain, and France.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. His latest books are, The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and How America Was Lost.http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/

This article first appeared in Strategic Culture Foundation - http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2014/05/22/russia-rise-to-global-power.html

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Sunday, 27 May 2012

Anti-Iranian Propaganda

by Stephen Lendman

My PhotoWhen America goes to war or plans one, media scoundrels march in lockstep.

Articles, commentaries, editorials, and broadcasts feature Washington handout-style journalism.
Managed news misinformation substitutes for truth and full disclosure. Readers and viewers are deceived and betrayed.

For years, Iran and Syria have been targeted for regime change. Independent governments aren’t tolerated. Puppet ones are planned to replace them. Scoundrel media play leading roles.

On May 24, The New York Times headlined “Iran Nuclear Talks End with No Deal.”

P5+1 talks failed as expected. Washington bears full responsibility. Deal-making isn’t at issue. It’s portraying Iran as uncooperative for added justification to wage war.

“The six wanted a freeze on Iranian production of uranium enriched to 20 percent purity, which is considered a short step from bomb grade.”
In fact, it’s a giant one to 90% required for weapons making. It’s especially so without intent to produce them.

Medical isotopes and other peaceful applications require 20%. NPT provisions permit it. Iran fully complies. Washington and Israel are serial violators. Their belligerence threatens humanity. Tehran threatens no one.

EU lead negotiator Catherine Ashton said “very intense and detailed discussions (left) significant differences” unresolved. They’ll remain so in future meetings. A June 18-19 Moscow one is planned. Nothing substantive will change.

“We will maintain intensive contacts with our Iranian counterparts to prepare a further meeting in Moscow,” Ashton announced.

Iran’s chief negotiator, Saeed Jalili said:

“Of the main topics in using peaceful nuclear energy is the topic of having the nuclear fuel cycle and enrichment. We emphasize this right.”
“This is an undeniable right of the Iranian nation….especially the right to enrich uranium.” If P5+1 nations negotiate in good faith, “we will, of course, welcome some offer to cooperate on.”
Iran didn’t go to Baghdad to surrender. Its position won’t change in Moscow. Washington demands it. The Times left that and other key issues unaddressed and/or misreported.

On May 26, Reuters headlined “Iran has enough uranium for 5 bombs: expert,” saying:

The Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) claims “Iran has significantly stepped up its output of low-enriched uranium and total production in the last five years (to provide) enough for at least five nuclear weapons if refined much further.”

David Albright heads ISIS. He impersonates a nuclear expert. He’s a former pseudo-UN weapons inspector. Former Iraq chief weapons inspector Scott Ritter called him a “nuclear expert who never was.”

His “track record (reveals) half-baked analyses derived from questionable sources….He breathes false legitimacy into these factually challenged stories by” claiming fake credentials.

Albright founded ISIS. It’s self-serving. It shuns truth. He fronts for power, privilege, and war profiteers. He’s part of Washington’s anti-Iranian agenda. In Iraq, he played the same role. He’s a pro-imperial opportunist.

In June 1996, he appeared once as as a pseudo-Iraq weapons inspector. His role was political, not scientific. He observed and regurgitated what Washington wanted to hear. He’s doing it now on Iran. His credibility is sorely lacking. He has none.

Claiming Iran is able to produce five bombs is inflammatory and misleading. All nations with commercial reactors produce enough uranium and plutonium for bomb-making. Only a handful, in fact, do it.

Iran isn’t one of them. That’s the headline not featured. Instead, deceptive ones heighten tensions for war.

IAEA head Yukiya Amano represents Western, not global interests fairly. He serves Washington’s anti-Iranian agenda. On May 25, he claimed inspectors found Fordo plant enriched uranium traces up to 27%.

Around 90% is needed for bomb-making. Iran purifies to 20%. Most amounts are around 3.5%. Traces signify nothing. Iran’s main stockpile complies with what it claims. No weapons development or production evidence exists.

At times, over-enrichment occurs. It’s normal, not unusual or cheating. Technicians adjust accordingly. IAEA inspectors should have left it unmentioned.

Media scoundrels, of course, jump on it in headlines. Many readers don’t go beyond a few paragraphs to know it’s insignificant.

On May 25, a Washington Post editorial headlined, “Iran’s hard bargain,” saying:
Iran rejected Western “confidence-building measures.” It demanded rights Washington rejects. “(E)xtended negotiations will only benefit Iran.”
“What’s most concerning about the Baghdad talks is that they failed to show that the regime of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has made a strategic decision to strike a bargain.”
“Instead, Tehran sought something for nothing: acceptance by the West of its uranium enrichment in return for assertions that it is not seeking nuclear weapons and promises to cooperate with international inspectors.”
“In fact, no ‘right’ to process uranium exists under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.”

Fact check


Iran wants (and deserves) to be treated like other countries with commercial nuclear operations. It complies fully with NPT provisions. Washington and Israel are nuclear outlaws.

Iran’s operations are more intensively monitored than any other nation. Washington and Israel prohibit inspections for good reason. Massive cheating would be found. Imperial powers never tell all or say they’re sorry.

NPT permits uranium enrichment as long as countries agree to rigorous monitoring. WP editors better check their sources. They, in turn, need to find another line of work.

Yousaf Butt is a nuclear physicist. He’s a Federation of American Scientists consultant. In January, his Foreign Policy article headlined “Stop the Madness,” saying:
“Despite all the hype, Iran’s nuclear program has yet to violate international law. It’s time to calm down, think, and above all halt the rush to war.”
“The IAEA considers 20 percent enriched uranium to be low-enriched uranium and ‘a fully adequate isotopic barrier’ to weaponization.”
Iran complies. It does nothing illegal. NPT doesn’t prevent a nuclear weapons “capability” or “option.” Dozens of nations have it.

Singling out Iran is for political reasons. It’s not about legitimate fears of an illegal weapons program in the hands of a country threatening to use them.

The key red line Iran won’t cross is “diverting” nuclear material for weapons production. Numerous experts and independent reports “affirmed (for) years that they have no evidence (of) any such program.”

Multiple rounds of sanctions “go far beyond anything related to its nuclear program.”
The hype about it is political. It has no scientific basis whatever.

Washington Post editorial assertions are false, misleading, and inflammatory. Iran is legally entitled to pursue its nuclear program.

P5+1 proposals were disingenuously one-sided. Unreasonable demands were made. Nothing was offered in return. Western good faith wasn’t present in Baghdad. It’s an oxymoron. It doesn’t exist.
Tehran negotiated responsibly. Not good enough, said Washington. Prove a negative was demanded. Refuse and be blamed for Western obstructionism.

Multiple rounds of discussions won’t change things. WP editors think the “slide toward war remains desirable. Iran cannot be granted much more time to build and install centrifuges.”

Washington is infested with hotheads. WP editorial and op-ed writers are among them. They have lots of scoundrel media company. Promoting war makes it more likely. Body counts and vast destruction don’t matter.

Nor for USA Today. It’s post-Baghdad editorial headlined “How the US can win at nuclear poker with Iran,” saying:

“There’s an old poker saying that if you look around the table and can’t figure out who the chump is, it’s you. Too often in high-stakes negotiations with rogue states such as North Korea and Iran, the U.S. has looked a lot like the chump as it tried to curtail those nations’ nuclear weapons programs.”
“(O)nly a sucker could be confident that….Iran really, really means” what it says.

Scoundrel media report this way. Managed news duplicity substitutes for real news, opinion and analysis.

Media liars bear full responsibity. So does Washington for failure, not Iran. Tehran can’t succeed without a willing partner. It hasn’t had one in decades. It has the worst of all relationships now. Obama itches for more war post-election.

He feigns negotiations while planning it at the same time. Munich and Hitler’s Non-Aggression Treaty with Soviet Russia come to mind. Washington and Israel are no different. Hawks in both countries are especially worrisome. They’re bent on aggression and won’t accept less.

In response on May 22, the Tehran Times headlined “Iran must take firm stance at Baghdad talks, saying:

For years, Iran “bravely resisted” unreasonable demands to halt its peaceful nuclear program. Tehran believes pursuing it is a legitimate right. It’s “non-negotiatble.”

At the same time, Iranian officials try to build trust and resolve differences. They negotiate in good faith. In return, they’re rebuffed, stonewalled, and betrayed.

It’s up to Washington to break the deadlock and end sanctions. They’re harsh and unfair. Short of capitulation, tug-of-war diplomacy won’t end. Hillary Clinton said Tehran must “close the gaps. All of our sanctions will remain in place and continue to move forward” for the duration.

They’re about making Iran’s economy scream. They’re not for its legitimate nuclear program. That’s red herring camouflage for bigger fish to fry. At issue is installing puppet leaders Washington controls. War looks likely to try.

Negotiating with America accomplishes nothing. It never did before and won’t now. “Therefore, resistance seems to be the only option left for the Iranian side to convey its message to the West and to uphold the inalienable rights of the Iranian nation.”

America and Israeli want imperial dominance. Iran wants to live free in peace.

Sovereign states deserve that much and more. Wars won’t end until enough of them unite and resist. If not soon, they’ll continue and expand dangerously.

Never in history has one nation devoted so much firepower to global death and destruction.
Saving humanity depends on restoring peace and stability before it’s too late to matter. There may not be much time left to do it.

Saving humanity depends on restoring peace and stability before it's too late to matter. There may not be much time left to do it.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

His new book is titled "How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War"
http://www.claritypress.com/Lendman.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Thursday, 24 May 2012

Baghdad Talks End, Iran Says No Need for New Round of Talks

The second round of fresh nuclear talks between Iran and the world powers had concluded in the Iraqi capital on Thursday as an Iranian official assured that there are no diplomatic grounds for a new round of negotiations.

iran, powers talks
The Iranian official said another round of negotiations won’t be necessary, at least if the two parties negotiating the Iranian nuclear program did not reach an agreement within the next hours.

On the second day of the nuclear negotiations between Iran and the Group of five plus one, which was launched yesterday, the Iranian official said that world powers creates a difficult environment around the nuclear talks in Baghdad.

The talks are co-chaired by Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council Saeed Jalili and the European Union (EU) Foreign Policy Chief Catherine Ashton, IRNA news agency said.

Jalili and Ashton held their second round of bilateral talks this morning. Their first meeting was held Wednesday evening after Iran and the 5+1 concluded their first round of talks.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Saturday, 21 April 2012

A Chance for Peace With Iran


by , April 16, 2012
With the price of gasoline rising, and President Barack Obama’s reelection prospects sinking, delaying a showdown with Iran and ratcheting down regional tensions has become a political necessity for this administration. The question is: can the Israel lobby scuttle revived negotiations?

That the participants came out of the 12-hour Istanbul meeting with reports of progress – and an agreement to meet again, on May 23, in Baghdad – is good news that must be taken in context. It’s been over a year since negotiators met, and the last round ended with both sides engaging in public recriminations, leading to the present impasse. This time around, the Iranians seemed fully engaged, and quite specific about what they are willing to discuss: and while such hot topics as the enrichment issue and increased IAEA access to Iranian nuclear facilities were politely danced around in public, all parties praised the meeting as "constructive."

Most important, from the Iranian perspective, is that the talks are to go forward within the context of the Nonproliferation Treaty, to which Iran is a signatory – and Israel, its chief antagonist, is not. Under the terms of the NPT, Iran has the right to create a peaceful – i.e. energy-oriented – nuclear program, which is what they have been insisting has been their goal all along. An agreement within this framework would underscore the Israelis’ unwillingness to sign the NPT, or to even admit the existence of their substantial nuclear arsenal.

It was only a matter of hours before the Israelis responded with typical peevishness. Meeting with Sen. Joe Lieberman, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu took a swing at Obama and the Europeans:
"My initial impression is that Iran has been given a freebie. It’s got five weeks to continue enrichment without any limitation, any inhibition."
As if Iran could create a nuclear weapon in five weeks time, even if it wanted to do so. This is par for the course for Netanyahu and Israel’s political leaders, whose constant harping on the alleged "existential threat" of an imaginary Iranian nuke has been a single note of hysteria sounded throughout the past few years, like an annoyingly defective car alarm the neighbors have learned to ignore. Time and again they have announced Tehran is "on the verge" of acquiring a nuclear arsenal: in two years, a year, in six months – the ticking of this purported time-bomb has been going on so long it has become just so much background noise. The Israelis have cried wolf once too often.

The Iranians refrained from lecturing Western diplomats in Istanbul, and their chief negotiator reportedly hinted at significant concessions on the key issues of enrichment and IAEA access. For their part, Western negotiators – particularly the Europeans, who are leading the effort – are apparently for the first time taking the Iranian Supreme Leader’s fatwa against nukes seriously. The P-5-plus-1, represented by EU foreign policy honcho and former CND’er Catherine Ashton, opened the meeting with a declaration affirming Iran’s right under the NPT to develop peaceful nuclear applications.
Ashton is hated by the Israelis, and they are likely to open their propaganda campaign against the negotiations by going after her as biased against the perceived interests of the Jewish state. The usual suspects will no doubt attribute darker motives to her stance.

The optimism that greeted the conclusion of the Istanbul talks is encouraging, but a realistic assessment must confront the politics behind the diplomacy. With all-too-likely GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney geared up for a foreign policy offensive, and the Israel firsters in both parties ever on the lookout for deviations from the bipartisan pro-Israel line, the political constraints on a settlement in an election year bode ill for the cause of peace. Not that Romney is proposing anything significantly different than the policy the Obamaites are now pursuing – draconian sanctions, relentless diplomatic and political pressure, and covert efforts at regime change. Yet the President and his advisors are walking a tightrope: the slightest wind in either direction could tip them over into the Scylla of appearing weak or the Charybdis of being provoked into war.

Like the Americans, the Iranians are constrained by politics: they refused to meet in bilateral talks with the US representatives for fear of being perceived back home as kowtowing to Washington. Iranian chief negotiator Saeed Jalili, a former deputy foreign minister, appeared at a news conference in front of a poster of the four assassinated Iranian nuclear scientists. The news the US has trained operatives of an anti-Iranian group on American soil – a group our own State Department has long classified as a terrorist organization – is unlikely to inspire trust: that and continued terrorist attacks carried out by Jundullah in Baluchistan and the Kurdish Pejak guerrillas are US bargaining chips rarely mentioned in Western news reports of the diplomatic back-and-forth: both groups have, at one time or another, received some American assistance, and they are surely getting aid from the Israelis.

While the Israelis aren’t shy about fighting a low-intensity covert war against the regime in Tehran, an all-out frontal attack is out of the question, in spite of their public posturing. The alleged threat of Israeli military action is a phony issue being ratcheted up by both Washington and Tel Aviv purely for dramatic effect: we are supposed to believe the Israelis are straining at the leash, and it’s only the Americans who can rein them in. In reality, Netanyahu hasn’t got the political support at home for a unilateral Israeli strike, and he knows it.

Aside from that, Israeli bombs over Tehran would violate the great unspoken rule of Israeli military and strategic doctrine: always get the Americans to do the fighting and the dying. It worked in Iraq, when Israeli-supplied "intelligence" tricked an all-too-willing-to-be-tricked Bush administration into fighting Israel’s war against Saddam. They hope to pull the same stunt in Iran, and the apparent success of the Istanbul conference is now a major obstacle in their path, albeit far from insurmountable.

Operating on two fronts – in the US, and in the region – the Israelis can do plenty to muck things up before the May 23 session convenes. Syria is at the boiling point, with the civil war spilling over the border into Lebanon and Turkey. By providing "non-lethal" aid to armed opposition groups in Turkey and within the country – and facilitating the provision of arms by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and other interested parties – Washington is already fighting a proxy war against Iran in Syria. If the Israelis can succeed in turning Washington’s cold war against Syria into a hot one, they can introduce fresh complications into what should be a straightforward and focused negotiating process. While Bashar al-Assad looks like he’s firmly in power for the moment, increased diplomatic and political pressure on a staunch Iranian ally could well play into a scenario in which Tehran withdraws out of anger at the prospect of losing its only ally in the region.

Another wild card is the nature and scope of Israel’s covert activities in Iran: assassinations, carried out by the Israeli-supported Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK) terrorist outfit, have humiliated the Iranians and provoked an internal security crackdown. Also not to be ruled out is a widening of the scope of the attacks to include high officials as well as scientists. That Israel has tried to pass off its recruiting of Jundullah terrorists operating in Baluchistan as the work of the Americans is the kind of provocation that could not only torpedo the negotiations but actually get us involved in a shooting war with the Iranians – which is precisely the goal of the Israelis.

In the end, the battle for a diplomatic solution to this manufactured "crisis" must be won, not in Istanbul or Baghdad, but in Washington. D.C. Yet the Imperial city is the stronghold of the powerful Israel lobby, which has annexed Congress the way the IDF has effectively annexed the West Bank, and which exerts a decisive influence on the leadership of both parties when it comes to foreign policy.

No matter how much it hurts our real interests to go to war with Iran over Tehran’s nonexistent "weapons of mass destruction," that is precisely what will happen unless war opponents can manage to exercise some political clout on the home front. While polls show Americans overwhelmingly want to avoid such a war, and support the negotiations, that this translates easily into the realm of policy is a naïve assumption: alas, too many people think "democracy" means majority rule rather than "the squeaky wheel gets the worm." When it comes to securing Israel’s interests over and above those of the US, the Lobby has the resources, the will, and an unbroken record of success.

NOTES IN THE MARGIN
I note, with a sigh of resignation, the "news" that Rep. Ron Paul has supposedly come out for moving the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem in recognition of the Israeli claim to that city as its capital. I also note that the only sources for this "news" are 1) Business Insider, a site that has never been friendly to Paul and has consistently engaged in baseless speculation about a "deal" with Romney, and 2) Doug Wead, a Republican operative and advisor to Paul whose secret recording of conversations he had with President George W. Bush – and their subsequent release – earned him near-universal distrust. The Paul campaign has issued no official statement of this new policy, and there is nothing on their web site about it as of Sunday afternoon, when this column is being written. Perhaps Mr. Wead will release his secret recording of the alleged conversation Paul had with evangelicals leaders, where he allegedly made this pledge.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Tuesday, 17 April 2012

West and Iran Step Closer to Agreement; Israel Worried

by Roy Tov

Tuesday, April 17th, 2012
Istanbul Conference 2012
Istanbul Conference 2012
April 15, 2012, the Istanbul Conference ended—a surprise for all participants—in a positive tone. The previous round of talks between Iran and the P5+1 took place in late January 2011 and ended in compete failure.

Back then, European Union High Representative Catherine Ashton released a statement: “We came without preconditions, and made every effort to secure agreement,” she said. “We had hoped to have a detailed and constructive discussion of those ideas. But it became clear that the Iranian side was not ready for this, unless we agreed to pre-conditions relating to enrichment and sanctions.” This time things were different. Both sides engaged in dialogue and decided on a meeting on May 23, in Baghdad.

These meetings are unusual in their level. P5+1 refers to the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council—Russia, China, the United States, France and Britain—plus Germany. They take place due to Western accusations that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons. Israel—the only Middle East state with an atomic arsenal—sees Iran’s atomic plans as a threat to its existence and has threatened military action. Iran says its programme is peaceful, and has already clarified it would retaliate for any attack on it by closing the Hormuz Straits, a major oil shipping route. The United States and Israel have not ruled out military action to destroy Iran’s nuclear sites. However, the USA recently made clear there would be no attack before the presidential elections this November. This may have caused the change in the tone of the talks.

The difference in the international treatment between Israel and Iran is the result of Iran being a signatory of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, while Israel is one of the four nuclear countries refusing to do so (the others are India, Pakistan, and North Korea). This allows the international community to watch over Iran’s nuclear program, but not to do so in Israel. Instead of being sanctioned for this, Israel is allowed to persecute Iran. The Istanbul conference is a quite formal instance, but other talks are taking place in preparation for the December 2012 Nonproliferation Treaty Conference in Helsinki (see Hiroshima, Tel Aviv: The December 2012 NPT Conference).
In the first week of April 2012, Jaakko Laajava, Finland’s Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs informally visited Jerusalem to discuss Israel’s participation, while in January, he met with Iran’s Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi, and dealt with the same issue. Following its aggressive nuclear policies, Israel is trying to cancel—or at least postpone—the conference which will center on the Middle East. The USA—Israel’s closest ally—helped to postpone the conference from 2011 to December 2012, but the American Administration has announced it supports the actual date of the event.

Saeed Jalili – Iranian Negotiator
Given the circumstances, Israel is worried about all the statements pronounced by the participants of the Istanbul Conference. “They met in a constructive atmosphere” said Michael Mann, a spokesman for EU Foreign Policy Chief Catherine Ashton, who is also Chair of the Istanbul Conference. “We had a positive feeling that they did want to engage.” This time, Iranian chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili did not state preconditions to further advance the talks, as had happened in 2011.

“We want now to move to a sustained process of serious dialogue, where we can take urgent practical steps to build confidence and lead on to compliance by Iran with all its international obligations” Ashton said. The aim of the P5+1 is to create the confidence “in the exclusively peaceful nature of the Iranian nuclear program,” Ashton said. Yet, the international community doesn’t request that from the most-probable-aggressor, namely Israel, since it is not a signatory to the treaty. This type of discriminatory treatment is what undermines the trust on international organizations run by Western States and their allies.

In March 2012, U.S. President Obama convinced Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at a summit in Washington to give diplomacy a chance. This change of American attitude was welcomed in Iran. Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei greeted Obama’s words that diplomacy not war was on the agenda by saying they were “an exit from delusion.” Afterwards, a statement hinting at a possible solution was issued. The Head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, Fereydoon Abbasi, said Iran would cap uranium enrichment at 20 percent, enough to drive a reactor that makes medical isotopes, but not refined enough for nuclear weapons. This may be the agreement to be achieved next month in Baghdad.

Plummeting Policies

Baronness Ashton & Jalili
When the main talk in Israel’s media is an imminent aggressive attack on Iran, the Nuclear Security Summit of December is not a comfortable option for the Zionist regime. Especially considering that the only reliable option open for Israel to attack Iran is a nuclear one (see Astonishing Israeli Attack on Iran).

The Israeli efforts to defer the conference were opened in the talks with the representative of the Finnish government, and are likely to intensify in the coming months.

Israel claims that the conference should not be held until regimes in the region, particularly in Egypt and Syria, stabilize. This is highly ironic, considering Israel had a key role in destabilizing Syria (see Slicing Syria). Israel’s chances to cancel the summit are slim. The decision to proceed with the conference was incorporated in an agreement document issued by the 2010 conference. The U.S. State Department expressed “deep regret” about it, and Israel protested its inclusion; but the document was not repealed. In April 2012, Israel is still repeating its mantra, claiming that it would not sign the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons until a comprehensive Arab-Israel peace deal is in place.

If next month an agreement between the P5+1 and Iran is achieved, Israel would be in a tough position with all its policies plummeting into the deepest oceans. All its rhetoric would have been rendered as motivated by its will to begin a war no matter what. Losing legitimacy in the eyes of most of its electorate—as well as the entire world—is the worst thing that can happen to a regime. The Zionists are about to reach such a point, unless something dramatic happens.

Since 2009, I have been claiming Israel would not directly attack Iran, unless in the fashion described in Astonishing Israeli Attack on Iran. Israel is simply unable to perform a conventional attack on such a large and far away target. Instead, Israel tries to Wag the Dog, an attack in which the “tail” (Israel) is attempting to wag the “dog” (USA) into attacking Iran, as some say was done in the Iraq War (see Wag the Dog for a more detailed analysis). The fact is also that the USA would find such an attack very difficult. Iran is neither Iraq nor Afghanistan. Instead of sacrificing two or three million American young men, the American president may find himself saying “no!” to Benjamin Netanyahu. If unable to Wag the President, Israel may decide to take him out, as Mr. Adler kindly pointed out in January 2012.

Andrew Adler published on January 13, 2012, the main column of the Atlanta Jewish Times. He claimed that Israel might someday need to “order a hit” on the president of the United States. He described a scenario in which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would need to “give the go-ahead for US-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel.” Then, the vice president would take office and dictate US policies that would help the Jewish state “obliterate its enemies.” Adler wrote that it is highly likely that the idea “has been discussed in Israel’s most inner circles.” (see Yitzhak Obama). I would dare to speculate that Israel asked Mr. Adler to publish such an article. It reads very much like a veiled threat against President Obama. “This is what awaits you if you do not fulfill our orders!” was Israel’s message. There is nothing new in such an attack; in Yitzhak Obama I gave samples of institutional political violence in Israel, and of Israeli violence towards America. Such an attack would be an escalation of existing tactics and not a new one. Everything is in place. In this Wag the Dog scenario, Israel is trying to force the USA into war with Iran. It seems, the situation is so desperate that last January a personal warning against president Obama was issued.

On September 23, 2011, an historic event took place at the 66th meeting of the UN General Assembly. Mahmoud Abbas—speaking for the Palestinian people—asked the UN member states to accept Palestine as an equal member of this exclusive club. Palestine got a standing ovation from a crowded room. Mahmoud Abbas succinctly summarized the Israeli violence and said: Enough, Enough, Enough!. It is time for the rest of the world to stand before the Zionist beast and say clearly: Enough, Enough, Enough!.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!