Tag Archives: israel

International, U.S.

World War 3 & Media Incompetence: Government orders U.S. citizens out of Syria, Strike Force anchored off Syrian coast? A case of hopeful warmongering by the mainstream media. Remember the Spanish American War?

“The U.S. Embassy continues to urge U.S. citizens in Syria to depart immediately while commercial transportation is available.”-U.S. Embassy in Syria

On November 23, the U.S. Embassy in Syria restated a warning they’ve been giving since September 30; U.S. citizens need to leave.  CBS News reported it as if it was something new.

Then Forbes reported the United States has positioned a naval strike force, lead by the aircraft carrier USS George HW Bush (aka CVN 77), off the coast of Syria.

According to Forbes, the carrier strike group number two (COMCARSTRKGRU TWO, Commander of the Carrier Strike Group number two) had been patrolling the Strait of Hormuz, which is the narrow inlet leading from the Indian Ocean to the Persian Gulf, south of Iran.  Suddenly they were shifted, all the way round to the Mediterranean Sea.  The implication being that something is going to happen.

Forbes later updated their story saying CVN 77’s Facebook page had them in France for R&R.  Lets not forget that deals have already been made regarding French control of Syria after any war (Syria and Lebanon were controlled by France after World War 1).

On November 23, the Virginian-Pilot reported that CVN 77 was heading back home to the United States.  The home port of  USS George HW Bush is Norfolk, Virginia.

The Virginia newspaper also reported that CVN 77, along with the other ships of the strike force, had held up in the Mediterranean to “…conduct a range of operations and help maintain maritime security…”.

If a naval force, based on the east coast of the U.S., was returning from the Persian Gulf, the shortest route would be through the Strait of Hormuz, through the Indian Ocean, the Red Sea, the Suez Canal, the Mediterranean Sea, the Strait of Gibraltar into the Atlantic Ocean heading west to the U.S.

This seems to me to be a clear case of hopeful warmongering on the part of CBS News and Forbes.  CBS simply took a U.S. Embassy warning, that’s been issued since September 30 (unchanged even, word for word the same as on Sep. 30), and made it sound like it was something new.

Forbes took the CBS story, and a report on the position of the COMCARSTRKGRU TWO and insinuated that ‘war were declared’ (a quote from Futurama).  The position of the strike group in the Mediterranean Sea was correct, but also outdated because by the time Forbes published their story the strike group had already sailed to French ports for R&R.  The strike group is probably already in the Atlantic Ocean by now.

The sad thing is that foreign media are now running with the CBS/Forbes story.  What was that ancient warning sign about the end of the world?  “Wars, and rumors of wars”?

Don’t get me wrong, I think war is coming for Syria, especially since French warmonger Sarkozy want it, and Lebanon, back under French control.

Regarding the Spanish American War, which most people in the U.S. know nothing about it (it’s how we got Puerto Rico, Guam, Philippines, etc). That war is a classic example of how the warmongering U.S. media (led by William Randolph Hearst) convinced the general public that war was the only answer, and they did it while most Federal officials worked for a peaceful solution.

A peaceful solution was reached.  Spain promised Cuba independence and made other concessions, but a U.S. Navy ship exploded while off the coast of Cuba.  The mainstream U.S. media said the back stabbing Spanish did it, even though initial USN investigation said it was an accident.  The U.S. public demanded war, and the warmongering politicians overruled the doves and ‘war were declared’.  Investigations done during the 20th Century revealed that the USN ship had indeed gone down due to faulty design, not a sneak attack by the Spanish.

 

International, U.S.

World War 3: Israel says the time is now, for war with Iran. Says Obama “excelling” at supporting Israel’s military

“Let me tell you, we recommend for a long time to all players to act sincerely and intensively to…deprive them or prevent them from turning nuclear.  And we have kept recommending to all to leave no option, not to remove any option from the table.”-Ehud Barak, Defense Minister of Israel

The Chinese media is quoting Israeli Defense Minister, Ehud Barak, as pushing for war with Iran right now, because of the implications of the questionable IAEA report: “But I can tell you that the IAEA report has a sobering impact on many in the world leaders, as well as the publics, and people understand that the time had come.”

Days before the official release of the IAEA report, Israeli media stated that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak were pushing for a military strike on Iran.

The leaders of Israel are now telling the world that Iran must be stopped: “People understand now that Iran is determined to reach nuclear weapons.  No other possible or conceivable explanation for what they have been actually doing. And that should be stopped.”-Ehud Barak

In an interview with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, Barak was asked how supportive the Obama administration is of Israeli policies. Barak says Obama’s support surpasses all other U.S. Presidents:  “He’s extremely strong supporter of Israel in regard to security. Traditionally Presidents will support Israel in keeping its quality military aids, and taking care of its security, but this administration is excelling in this.”


International, U.S.

World War 3: Turkey oppossed to military action against Syria & Iran

“Turkey, as a friend of the neighboring country of Iran, will never accept a measure that would harm Iran under any condition.”-Abdullah Gul, President of Turkey

Despite building up troops on the border between Turkey and Syria, the Turkish President, Abdullah Gul, also says they will not support any military action against Syria: “We are opposed to any attack on Syria. And incidents in Iraq and Libya should not be repeated in this country. Enemies are making attempts to wage a religious war, and regional countries should not fall into this trap.”

However, British media are reporting that the Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has made statements supporting war with Syria and Iran: “No doubt, the problems both in Syria and in the Middle East in general are global problems. Therefore, we have to see the tragedy in the area, hear the screams and urgently take measures to stop the bloodshed for the safety of energy supplies as much as global peace and calm.”

Could this be because Turkey finds itself between a rock and a hard place?  Literally, geographically, between the West and the Middle East.

International, U.S.

World War 3: Iran increases anti-aircraft drills, U.S. to give ‘green light’ to Israeli airstrikes

Israeli media claims Iran’s Revolutionary Guards are stepping up anti-aircraft training.  The report comes immediately after the UN’s IAEA passed a resolution against Iran.

Despite Israeli media’s claim, there’s no detailed info about such action on any Iranian media site, so far.

On Russian media sites, they’re claiming the U.S. has just threatened Iran.  U.S. officials have asked Iran to suspend all nuclear activities until the spring of 2012. If Iran does not, then the United States will give Israel the green light for air strikes.  Again, I can’t find any info about this on U.S., or Israeli media sites.

International, Technology, U.S.

World War 3: IAEA approves resolution against Iran, Russia & China resist the resoluton

“But this is the magic of diplomacy. If you want to get everyone on board you have to sacrifice something. I hope it will lay the ground for future (UN Security Council) resolutions … I really hope so.”-Ehud Azoulay, Israeli envoy

November 18, the International Atomic Energy Agency has passed a resolution against Iran.  However, no details were included in the resolution, as to exactly what action is to be taken, this was the only way the IAEA could get Russia and China to vote for it.

Out of the 35 countries voting on the resolution, 32 voted for it. Cuba and Ecuador voted against.  Indonesia abstained.

 

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, 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?