Tag Archives: iran

Business/Economics, International, U.S.

World War 3, What Economic Recovery? U.S. Defense Secretary says war with Iran will destroy World economy, yet Israeli officials say the World should attack Iran anyway

“I have to tell you… there are going to be economic consequences to that, that could impact not just on our economy but the world economy.”-Leon Panetta, Defense Secretary of the United States

Despite the warmongering rhetoric coming from the White House, and Capitol Hill, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is warning of an economic Armageddon scenario if the ‘West’ attacks Iran.

Panetta made the remarks a day before going to Canada, to discuss the very plan to attack Iran with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak.

Meanwhile, Ehud Barak is trying to fan the flames of warmongering by claiming that Iran’s alleged, and unproven, nuclear weapons program is targeting the whole world: “In order to do this we must convince world leaders and the public that the Iranian nuclear program is not only targeting Israel, but the foundations of the entire world order as well.”


 

International, U.S.

Internet Incompetence: Sites on the internet are incorrectly reporting that 85% of U.S. citizens are against war with Iran

A few international news sites have reported that CBS News conducted a poll that showed 85% of people in the United States are against war with Iran.  Blog sites have been picking up that ball and running with it.  The problem is that it’s not true.

I looked at the CBS News Poll, and it’s not quite what’s being reported by other  internet sites. The results were 55% who thought diplomacy was enough, 17% who said Iran was no threat, and 15% who wanted to go to war NOW!  I didn’t see any “85% against war with Iran”.

The CBS News Poll has a lot of other interesting responses about U.S. policy in the Middle East, North Africa, China and North Korea, but, like many polls, the number of respondents are just to small to accurately represent the whole of the U.S. population.

International, Opinion, U.S.

World War 3: U.S. sells first strike bunker buster bombs to United Arab Emirates, proof that we’re going to war against Iran

According to the Commonwealth controlled (British Empire, via Rupert Murdoch) Wall Street Journal, warmonger U.S. President Barack Obama is about to sign off on a deal to provide the UAE with bunker buster bombs.

The WSJ article claims that the UAE is about to buy 4,900 JDAMs.  These are not necessarily bunker busters, but could be configured as such.  JDAM stands for Joint Direct Attack Munitions.  Basically it’s an advanced smart bomb that can be set up with a variety of explosive material, depending on what the target is.

The UAE deal is part of a trend. In recent months the United States has already sold thousands of JDAMs to Saudi Arabia and Israel.

Bunker buster bombs are not defensive weapons, they are first strike weapons, used when you invade a country.  This is why the sale of these weapons to Middle Eastern countries, who don’t like Iran, is a sign of a coming attack on Iran.

Russian media say the UAE arms deal also includes Hellfire anti-tank missiles.  Iran has the largest tank force in the Middle East.

Regarding the WSJ, as well as most U.S. media sources, being controlled by the British Empire; a clue is that many times they use Commonwealth English grammar rules. In their article about the JDAM sale to the UAE they punctuate the abbreviation for UN, and UAE.  That’s incorrect for U.S. English grammar rules: “In American English, U.S. (with periods) is more common as the standard abbreviation for United States, although The Chicago Manual of Style now deprecates the use of the periods (16th ed.). US (without periods) is generally accepted in most other national forms [such as British English] of English. In longer abbreviations incorporating the country’s initials (USN, USAF), periods are not used.”-Wikipedea: Manual of Style

I had a college professor try to clarify the rules; he said only abbreviations for country names, and proper names for people get punctuated in U.S. grammar rules.  Organizations and business names do not. The UN is an organization, not a country.

In fact, even military vehicles used in UN peacekeeping operations do not punctuate the “UN” painted on their vehicles.  The U.S. military stopped punctuating their abbreviations in the late 1940s, when the new standardized U.S. grammar rules were finally adopted.  USAF=United States Air Force, USN=United States Navy, USMC=United States Marine Corps and USA (without punctuations)=United States Army.  So the next time you see a product labeled “Made in USA” (no punctuations) does it mean it was made by the United States Army, or that the company is ignorant of U.S. grammar rules?

What about the UAE (United Arab Emirates)?  The UAE is actually a confederation of seven smaller emirates. Despite many sources calling the UAE a federation, it can not be, because each ruler of each emirate maintains supreme authority within their emirate.  Therefore the UAE is not a “country”, but an loose organization of smaller countries.  This is the case with the failed Confederate States of America.  In fact being a loose confederation was a primary reason for their losing the Civil War (War Between the States) in the 1860s.

The same can be said for the Commonwealth of Independent States, or CIS.  This is a confederation of countries lead by Russia, and includes many former members of the Soviet Union.

However, even Wikipedia: Manual of Style confuses the issue: “For consistency in an article, if the abbreviated form for the United States appears alongside other abbreviated country names, avoid periods throughout; never add full stops to the other abbreviations (the US, the UK, and the PRC, not the U.S., the U.K., and the P.R.C.).”

In the case of the WSJ article, it’s interesting that they punctuate U.S. and UN (the article was written by three people).

Did I distract you enough from the preparations for war with Iran?

International, Technology, U.S.

World War 3: British government officials leak info about invasion of Iran; Merry Xmas

“We’re expecting something as early as Christmas, or very early in the New Year.”-unnamed British Foreign Office source

The British media outlet Daily Mail has been publishing what they claim are leaked details of the coming attack on Iran, by Israel, United Kingdom and the United States.

On November 2 they published an article that says the U.K. and the U.S. are working on the details of a joint military operation against Iran.  It said that President Barack Obama wants vengeance for a supposed plot to assassinate a Saudi Arabian official (which in reality was a failed DEA/FBI sting operation), and that Obama and Prime Minister David Cameron are using the latest IAEA report as justification.

The Daily Mail says the invasion of Iran will be made by British and U.S. forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as from the Persian Gulf.  Israel will use its air force (including its growing arsenal of ballistic missiles) against Iran.

Whitehall (a term referring to the British royal family “Her Majesty’s Government” which oversees the operation of the U.K. government, the Queen is the c in c of British forces) officials claim that Iran has suddenly appeared “newly aggressive, and we are not quite sure why.”

The Daily Mail also said that Obama does not want a new war before the 2012 elections, but is being pressured by Israel.

The British newspaper Guardian also published similar articles.

On November 10, the Daily Mail published an article that said Israel would launch air strikes against Iran by the end of December. That report came from British intelligence officials.

British Ministry of Defense officials said their concern about Iran getting the bomb, is that other middle eastern countries will follow suit:  “The bigger concern is it will be impossible to stop Saudi Arabia and Turkey from developing their own weapons.”

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak continues to imply a possible Israeli military strike against Iran’s nuclear program: “We continue to recommend to our friends in the world and to ourselves, not to take any option off the table.”

.

 

International, Technology, U.S.

World War 3: Russia blasts IAEA, backs Iran

“Russia is gravely disappointed and bewildered that the report is being turned into a source adding to the tensions over the problems connected to the Iranian nuclear program.”-Russian Foreign Ministry

Russia has doubts concerning the IAEA report on Iran’s nuclear program.  One clue is that the report wasn’t supposed to be made public until November 17/18.  It seems IAEA boss Yukiya Amano intentionally ‘leaked’ the report on November 8: “We have serious doubts about the justification for steps to reveal contents of the report to a broad public, primarily because it is precisely now that certain chances for the renewal of dialogue between the ‘sextet’ (P5+1) of international mediators and Tehran have begun to appear.”-Russian Foreign Ministry

Russian officials say this is an intentional move made behind the scenes by the United States: “The analysis must take place in a calm atmosphere, since it is important to determine whether some new, reliable evidence strengthening suspicions of a military element in Iran’s nuclear program has really appeared, or whether we are talking about an intentional, and counterproductive, whipping up of emotions.”

Business/Economics, International, Technology, U.S.

World War 3: Iran responds to IAEA claims

On November 8, Iran’s envoy to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Ali-Asghar Soltanieh, answered 20 critical questions about Iran’s nuclear program.

Question 1: Has the IAEA detected, after 4000 days of most intensive inspection in the agency’s history, even one gram of uranium being diverted for military purposes?

Response: No. Please study all of the reports by the agency’s current and former director generals.

Question 2: With respect to nuclear activities and materials which are claimed to have not been declared until 2003, has the IAEA found out that they had been diverted towards military activities?

Response: No. All of these activities and materials were audited by the agency. Please study all the agency’s reports to the Board of Governors between 2003 and 2004

Question 3: Was Iran ethically obliged to declare Natanz enrichment facility before 2003?

Response: No. Given that nuclear material had not been introduced into the facility until 2003, Iran was under no obligations to declare it. Particularly since Iran had not signed the Revised Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements, as well as the additional Comprehensive Safeguards (CSA) and Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) agreements.

Question 4: Was Iran legally obliged to declare the heavy water research reactor in Arak (IR40) before 2003?

Response: No. Iran was not under any obligation to declare it since no nuclear material had been introduced into it until 2003, particularly since Iran had not signed the Revised Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements until 2003.

Question 5: Had Iran any obligation under the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement to report Arak’s heavy water production plant to the IAEA before 2003?

Response: No, because heavy water and its products are not covered by the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement. Iran started implementing the Additional Protocol in 2003.

Question 6: Was Iran under any legal obligation until 2003 to declare uranium conversion Facilities (UCF)?

Response: No. Since no nuclear material had been introduced into the facility until 2003, Iran was not under any obligations to declare it, particularly given that Iran had not signed the Revised Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements until 2003.

Question 7: Did Iran have any legal obligation to declare uranium mines including Gachin and Saghand mines?

Response: No, because Iran had not signed and implemented the Additional Protocol until 2003.

Question 8: Has the IAEA detected any nuclear material or activity including enrichment in Parchin and Lavizan-Shian, which are claimed to have been part of a nuclear weapons program after the UN agency carried out intensive inspections, including sampling and analyzing?

Response: No. The director general’s press statement about Iran on March 6, 2006 reads, “On transparency, I think I mentioned in my report access to military sites, we have been given access to a number of military sites recently, to Parchin, Lavizan, Shian, to dual use equipment, to interview people. These are beyond the Additional Protocol, but they are essential for us to reconstruct the history of the program.”

On November 15, 2004, the director general reported that the agency had been provided access to the Lavizan-Shian military site where the agency took environmental samples. Finally, paragraph 102 of the director general (GOV/2004/83) says, “The vegetation and soil samples collected from the Lavizan-Shian site have been analyzed, and reveal no evidence of nuclear material.” Further information with respect to this issue is available in November 18, 2005 (GOV/2005/87) and February 27, 2006 (GOV/2006/15) documents.

Question 9: Did the IAEA, in its agreed Action Plan (INFOSIRC/711), announce that there is no other issue in addition to what was listed in 2007?

Response: Yes. The paragraph IV of the document (INFOSIRC/711) says that these modalities cover all the remaining issues, and the agency emphasizes that there will be no issues and ambiguities regarding Iran’s previous nuclear programs and activities.

Question 10: Was the IAEA bound to submit the documents related to the “Alleged Studies” to the Islamic Republic based on its Action Plan?

Response: Yes. Paragraph III says, “Although the agency will submit the documents to the Islamic Republic, considering the Green Salt Project, experiments of high explosives and carrying missiles with returning abilities, it will also keep them with itself.

Question 11: Did the IAEA fulfill its obligations regarding the submitting of the evidence pertaining to the allegations to Iran?

Response: No. Please study the report by the former director general to the UN Board of Governors, where he correctly criticizes that the certain country that has provided the agency with the evidence on the allegations has not allowed the agency to submit the documents in question to Iran.

Question 12: Has the IAEA confirmed the authenticity of the content of the “Alleged Studies”?

Response: No. Please study the report by the former director general to the UN Board of Governors, where he correctly brought up the authentic problems with the documents. The director general also clearly explained that the nuclear materials and activities in the “Alleged Studies” are not relevant.

Question 13: What was Iran’s obligation toward the document INFOSIRC/ 711 regarding the “Alleged Studies”?

Response: In Paragraph III of the document, which was discussed and agreed upon by the IAEA and Iran, and was to be approved by the Board of Governors specifies, “As a sign of the resolve to cooperate with the agency, based on all the related documents received, Iran will study the document and will inform the agency of its evaluation.”

Question 14: Did Iran, under the work plan, have any obligation to hold meetings, interviews or [allow] sampling regarding the “Alleged Studies”?

Response: No. As mentioned in Response 12, Iran was only obliged to inform of its evaluation. Iran has submitted its 117-page evaluation of the past three years. But the agency has not acted on its obligation to end the Action Plan. Accreting to Paragraph IV of the Action Plan, “The agency and Iran agreed that, following the implementation of the Action Plan and the agreed modalities for the negotiation of remaining issues, the implementation of the safeguards in Iran change to continue in the normal and conventional path.”

Notice: Instead of the Action Plan’s conclusion, the secretariat introduced new allegations known as “Possible Military Aspects.” But in Paragraph IV of the Work Plan it is affirmed that “no issue has remained and there not any doubts about Iran’s nuclear program and previous activities.”

Question 15: Has the Islamic Republic implemented the Additional Protocol?

Response: Yes. Please study the report by the former director general before 2006.

Question 16: Has Iran implemented the Modified Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangement of the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement?

Response: Yes. Please study the report by the former director general before 2006.

Question 17: Since when Iran has halted its voluntary implementation of the Additional Protocol and the Modified Code 3.1? Why?

Response: Iran’s Majlis (parliament) voted to stop the voluntary implementation of the Additional Protocol and the Modified Code 3.1 (after two years and half) regarding the unfair reference of Iran’s technical nuclear case to the United Nations Security Council in 2006. The important point is that the Additional Protocol is not a binding legal tool and the Modified Code 3.1 was merely a suggestion by the Board of Governors and is not part of the legal provisions of the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement (CSA).

Question 18: Have all Iran’s nuclear materials been measured, and are under the complete supervision of the safeguards and remained peaceful?

Response: Yes. Please study the annual Safeguards Implementation Report (SIR).

Question 19: Did Iran itself provide the possibility of unannounced inspections?

Response: Yes. The agency conducted more than 100 unannounced inspections in Iran. The advance-notice for some of them were issued only two hours before the inspection.

Question 20: Why does Iran deem the resolutions by the Board of Governors and the UN Security Council as illegal?

Response: A. In accordance with Article 12 C under the IAEA statute, if the inspectors notice any “non-compliance,” they should report the same to the director general and the later should report to the Board of Governors thereafter. Followingly, the Board will notify the report to the United Nations. None of these procedures have been applied with regard to Iran.

After three years elapsed since 2003, when the issue was raised at the Board of Governors, some members of the Board claimed that there had been “non-compliance” prior to 2003. Nonetheless, the director general did not use the legal term “non-compliance” and instead used the word “failure,” which has also been used with regard to the other countries, which implement the CSA. Based on this agreement, the issue will be considered as concluded after corrective measures are adopted. The former director general clearly confirmed in his report that Iran took all the corrective measures.

B. Article 12 C mentioned in the Board’s resolutions speak of “recipient member states,” which have misused the nuclear materials delivered from the Agency. Iran has never received the nuclear materials mentioned in the relevant provisions under the Statute.

C. According to the Statute and the CSA, if the Agency discovers that the nuclear materials have been diverted to military purposes, it will notify the UN Security Council of the same. All the reports submitted by the incumbent and former dire generals so far contain no evidence of nuclear diversion.

D. Based on the CSA, if a member state does not allow the inspectors to enter the country and as a result the IAEA cannot conduct its verification activities, the Agency will notify the UN Security Council of the issue. All the reports by the director general since 2003 have explicitly announced that the Agency is able to continue its verification activities in Iran.

E. The resolutions by three EU member states against Iran from 2003 to 2006 have recognized Iran’s move to suspend its uranium enrichment activities as a non-binding, voluntary and trust-building measure. Therefore, the Board of Governors ‘s resolutions which referred Iran’s nuclear issue to the UN Security Council, after Iran decided to suspend its UCF activities voluntarily, are totally in contradiction with the Board’s previous resolutions.

It should be mentioned that when the three EU member states proposed the anti-Iran resolutions at the Board of Governors in 2006 with political motives and in an attempt to involve the UN Security Council in an IAEA-related technical issue, enrichment activities in Natanz were still suspended voluntarily.

The last question from peace-seeking nations:

Based on the above mentioned facts, should we allow the IAEA, as the only international body tasked with promotion of peaceful use of nuclear energy for the achievement of peace and prosperity, to be manipulated as a tool by a number of countries which seek to turn the Agency into a watchdog utterly malleable into the hands of the UN Security Council and deprive the developing countries of their “absolute right” to use peaceful nuclear energy as stipulated in the IAEA Statute?

International, Technology, U.S.

World War 3: IAEA accuses Iran of trying to make nuclear weapons, get ready for another U.S. led invasion

An International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report says Iran has built test sites for nuclear weapons.

The IAEA says Iran conducted high explosives testing aimed at simulating the detonation of nuclear weapons.  Iran is also accused of conducting research that is relevant only to nuclear weapons.

IAEA officials are demanding Iran provide an explanation.

Iranian officials say the IAEA is being directly manipulated by the United States.  Iran claims the current director of the IAEA, Yukiya Amano of Japan, is simply reading from a report that was made up by U.S. officials, and is baseless.

 

International, Technology, U.S.

World War 3: Ron Paul says U.S. claims against Iran are overblown, sanctions are acts of war

“For them to be a threat to us and to anyone in the region, I think it’s blown out of proportion.”-Ron Paul, U.S. Congressman from Texas

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is scheduled to come out on November 8 with a new report on Iran.  Some sources say it will accuse Iran of making nuclear weapons.

One week ago, the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee asked to intensify sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran.  Ron Paul says that proves we are at war with Iran: “When you put on strong sanctions, those are acts of war.”

If you take some college courses on warfare you’ll discover that economic sanctions really are part of the war making arsenal (that’s why the Japanese say they were justified in attacking the U.S. Navy at Pearl Harbor in 1941).




 

International, Technology, U.S.

World War 3: Israel develops ballistic missile, the target; Iran

November 3, Israel’s Defense Ministry said they had test fired a ballistic missile.  Observers say the latest test-firing is a warning against Iran’s nuclear program.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned of a “direct and heavy threat” posed by Iran’s nuclear program.

The testing of the ballistic missile was not announced in advance.  Some Israeli media sources say this is part of the Israeli government’s plan to attack Iran.  However officials in Netanyahu’s administration say regarding the missile test and Iran “The two things are separate”.

 

Business/Economics, International

Global Economic War: Iran to increase sales of oil based on barter, not cash

Iran intends to boost the volume of its oil swaps to 200,000 barrels per day by March 20, 2012.

Iranian officials say that by using newly devised mechanisms, the demand for trading oil through barter deals, rather than using cash, is climbing.

The barters involve swapping oil related products, such as crude oil for refined fuel.

Iran is the second largest oil exporter within the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).