OMNI IRAN
Here is the link to all the newsletters archived in
the OMNI web site.
http://www.omnicenter.org/newsletter-archive/ These newsletters offer information that enables
us to examine morality and judgment of our leaders and their policies, of
power. Here is the link to the Index: http://www.omnicenter.org/omni-newsletter-general-index/
"To
initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime, it
is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that
it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." -- Robert H.
Jackson, Chief U.S. Prosecutor, Nuremberg
“It has been a mainstay of this book that successful antiwar movements are
those that have been able to make direct links with those in the flight path of
US aggression and to bring
their struggles and concerns directly into the US
Write or Call the White House
President
Obama has declared his commitment to creating the most open and accessible
administration in American history. That begins with taking comments and
questions from you, the public, through our website.
Call
the President
PHONE NUMBERS
Comments:
202-456-1111Switchboard: 202-456-1414
TTY/TTD
Comments:
202-456-6213Visitor's Office: 202-456-2121
Write a letter to
the President
Here are a
few simple things you can do to make sure your message gets to the White House
as quickly as possible.1. If possible, email us! This is the fastest way to get your message to President Obama.
2. If you write a letter, please consider typing it on an 8 1/2 by 11 inch sheet of paper. If you hand-write your letter, please consider using pen and writing as neatly as possible.
3. Please include your return address on your letter as well as your envelope. If you have an email address, please consider including that as well.
4. And finally, be sure to include the full address of the White House to make sure your message gets to us as quickly and directly as possible:
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington , DC 20500
Contents Nos. 18-19 at end.
Contents #20
NYT Fails to Report Call
Non-nuclear
Option
Credo: Tell Obama
Frank Brodhead’s
Weekly Continued, August 19
Brodhead’s
Weekly, September 10, 2012
Veterans for
Peace
Chomsky on
US/Israeli Threat
Contents #21
Retracts Its
Falsehood
Peace Video: Iran and Israel
Leverett,
Misunderstanding Iran
Pro-Israel Meet
the Press
Lendman, An
Alternative History
Contents #22 March 5, 2013
Affleck’s Film Argo
Ibrahamian, The
Coup
2009 Uprising Against Rigged Election
Contents #23
Tikkun, Michael Lerner, What is Needed to Conclude the
Deal
FAIR, Iran
Bennis, Pres. Obama’s Iran Speech
Code Pink for Diplomacy
Scheer: US Intervention Ended Iran’s Experiment with
Democracy
Andrew Cockburn: Ferocity and Failure of US Sanctions
Nick Turse: If Israel Attacked Iran
Shirazi, US Spins Iranian Elections
General Cartwright Indicted for Exposing US Cybernet
Attacks
Tutu: End Double
Standard for Nuclear Weapons
Leverett, Engage Don’t Threaten Iran
Pope Francis and President Rohani versus Extremism
Frank Brodhead via HAW, April 2, 2013
Frank Brodhead, HAW, May 26, 2013
|
The article below from
the Guardian speaks about why a nuclear deal with The Guardian -
How President Obama can achieve a nuclear deal with Iran
Tom Rogan
theguardian.com,
Tuesday 12 November 2013 13.15 GMT
In the cause of peace, the
clock is ticking.
Western Intelligence services
have delayed a nuclear
He's right.
This isn't just about
Yet there's cause for hope.
Further talks are planned for
the near future. In order to reach a deal, Obama must embrace a far more
realistic negotiating position.
First, the
At the same time, any serious
deal would have to proscribe robust consequences for Iranian non-compliance –
stronger sanctions as a first step and the (credible) threat of multilateral
military force as a follow up. In order to persuade a skeptical
Second, Obama would have to
ensure that any deal is perceivably sustainable – offering long term
durability. Here, it will be critical to provide deal-enforcement mechanisms
that reach beyond Iranian territory. In practical terms, a deal would need
the co-operation of P5+1 intelligence officers and law enforcement personnel.
Absent the unified resolve of the international community, any deal would
quickly wither in face of self-interested agendas. Iranian hardliners would
almost certainly pursue a covert weaponization program and unscrupulous
business interests would wager the gambit of lucrative black market
opportunities. Without a bedrock of sustainability, a deal would only be a
pretense.
Third, Obama needs to realize
that unless a deal is sellable to all parties, it's neither serious nor
sustainable. This is perhaps the most important caveat. In order to bridge
present gaps, Kerry will have to accept von Bismarck's adage – that
ultimately, "politics is the art of the possible". This
understanding will demand tough choices – a successful deal would be signaled
by complaints from hardliners on all sides. In more specific terms, Kerry
will have to balance a low percentage cap on enrichment with a closure of
facilities like those at
Herein lies the defining
challenge. The
It's true, where parties lack
trust, diplomacy is seldom easy. It's also fair to say that nuclear diplomacy
raises these complexities to an unequaled level. Nevertheless, without a
realistic deal, figuratively or literally, the Iranian nuclear crisis is
heading for meltdown.
In order to preserve the
intersection of peace and security,
Addendum
from Rabbi Michael Lerner, editor of Tikkun Magazine
The article
is clear about what
The
path of coercion and domination has not and will not work. So it's time to
try the path of generosity and respect for the Iranian people.
Here
are the necessary steps:
1. The U.S. and the countries that originally colonized Iran
(France, Britain, Russia) must apologize to the Iranian people for attempting
to dominate it and extract its oil for profit and power of the Western oil
companies and for Western (and sometimes Russian) military power (though
Russia never succeeded in the way that the Western powers did). The
2. The U.S. should announce that within a year of the
implementation of the nuclear treaty, and the proof that inspectors are being
given freedom to do spot inspections to ensure compliance by Iran, that all
levels of eocnomic boycotts will be suspended and that the U.S. will be happy
to enter into and economically support a common market for the Middle East
that includes Iran and Israel. Moreover, the
3. The U.S. will announce a plan for the terms of a lasting
peace accord between Israel and Palestine incorporating the elements
specified in Tikkun's plan (see the Winter 2014 issue of Tikkun which will be
mailed in late January, but which are substantially the same as those
presented in my book Embracing
Israel/Palestine which
you can order at www.tikkun.org/eip). President Obama should fly to
Israel, announce these terms as the only ones satisfactory to the U.S., and
should announce a suspension of all military cooperation with Israel--once
Iran's compliance with the treaty establishing no militarization of Iran's
nuclear capacities and eliable means of enforcement have been agreed to and
implemented and verified) until Israel itself implements the terms of the
peace agreement stipulated by the U.S.and presented in Embracing
Israel/Palestine. In case this is not sufficient to get
4. The U.S. should demand of Iran that it explicitly
acknowledge the existence of Israel and renounce any intent to destroy the
State of Israel or otherwise deny the Jewish people the right to national
self-determination in the Middle East, and that it acknowledge the same
rigths for the Kurds, and affirm religious freedom for all minority groups
including the Ba'hai.
This is the path to a safe and lasting agreement with
Please feel
free to republish my comments, send it to your friends, put it on your
Facebook page and other social media, and put it on your own website,
if and only if you also at least summarize the Guardian article which
stipulates the terms and enforcements of a nuclear agreement with the Iranian
government. And urge anyone who agrees with it to join our Network of
Spiritual Progressives and thereby support us to do the important work of
showing what a world based on generosity rather than domination could look
like.
|
|
Copyright ©
2010 Network of Spiritual Progressives®. 510-644-120 |
Action Alert
NBC's Iran
Shocking nuclear news wasn't news at all
NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams
told viewers on September 27 that Iran Iran
The report was about the Phone call between Barack Obama and
Iranian president Hassan Rouhani:
This is all part of a new leadership effort by
Iran
This is similar to the
line that NBC Nightly News took last week, when correspondent Ann
Curry interviewed Rouhani on the September 18 newscast (FAIR Blog, 9/19/13). Williams said the
interview included "big revelations about nuclear weapons." That was
presumably referring to the fact that Rouhani said Iran
We have time and again said that under no
circumstances would we seek any weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear
weapons, nor will we ever.
But NBC should know that this isn't a
"sudden" change at all; Iran
Like on the September
19, 2006, newscast, when Williams interviewed Iran
WILLIAMS: And the American president says,
"It's OK, keep your nuclear program to keep your homes warm. Stop
enriching uranium toward weapons." How do you react?
AHMADINEJAD: Who is the right judge for that? Any
entity except for the IAEA? All IAEA reports indicate that Iran Iran
Almost two years
later, Williams interviewed Ahmadinejad again (NBC Nightly News,
7/28/08), who said this:
We are not working to manufacture a bomb. We
don't believe in a nuclear bomb. We also think that it will not affect
political relations…. Nuclear bombs belong to the 20th century. We are living
in a new century. We think that when it came to the nuclear issue, an
inappropriate measure or action was taken. Nuclear energy must not be equaled
to a nuclear bomb. This is a disservice to the--to the society of man.
NBC Nightly News (9/17/09) aired another Ahmadinejad interview where he
said the same thing. And Williams (12/3/07) in 2007 reported the US government's own assessment that Iran is not working on a nuclear
weapon:"Out of nowhere the US
said today it has intelligence that Iran
On the September 27
newscast, Williams said of Rouhani: "It's tempting for peace-loving people
to get excited about all this. And it comes down to the question, can we trust
the guy?"
But can US television
viewers trust Williams to remember his own network's reporting on Iran US
politicians' frequent unsubstantiated claims about Iran
ACTION:
Tell NBC Nightly News to correct the record:Iran
Tell NBC Nightly News to correct the record:
CONTACT:
NBC Nightly News
NBC Nightly News
Or send them a message
on Twitter: @nbcnightlynews
|
Reader Supported News Greenwald writes: "Yes, Iran's claim that they don't want nuclear weapons sure is 'sudden' - if you pretend that virtually everything that they've said on that question for the past ten years does not exist." READ MORE |
Thursday, September
26, 2013
·
HOME
·
ABOUT US
·
DONATE
·
ARCHIVES
·
E-mail
·
Print
·
Share
Reading Obama’s Iran Speech
President Barack Obama
addresses the 68th session of the United Nations General Assembly, Tuesday,
September 24, 2013. (AP Photo/Pablo
There were lots of problem areas in the speech—President Obama
was right when he said that US
policy in the Middle East would lead to
charges of “hypocrisy and inconsistency.” US policy—its protection of Israeli
violations of international law, its privileging of petro-monarchies over human
rights, its coddling of military dictators—remains rank with hypocrisy and
inconsistency. And Obama’s speech reflected much of it.
But President Obama’s speech at the United Nations General
Assembly reflected some of the extraordinary shifts in global—especially Middle
East and most especially Syria-related—politics that have taken shape in the
last six or eight weeks. And on Iran Iran Iran ’s
right to nuclear energy represented a major shift away from the longstanding
claim among many US hawks
and the Israeli government that Iran
Respecting Iran Iran Iran US
It was also important that President Obama spoke of Iran with respect, acknowledging Iranian
interests and opinions as legitimate and parallel to Washington United States
has “deep roots,” referencing (however carefully) the “history of US interference in their affairs and of America Iran Iran ’s
oil than to his ties to the Soviet Union .)
Obama also paid new attention to longstanding Iranian positions.
He noted that “the Supreme Leader has issued a fatwa against the development of
nuclear weapons, and President Rouhani has just recently reiterated that the
Islamic Republic will never develop a nuclear weapon.” Now anyone following the
Iran nuclear issue knows
that the Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, stated at least as far back as 2003 that
nuclear weapons are a violation of Islamic law and Iran
Mainstream US press and officials have long derided those
statements, claiming that fatwas are not binding, that 700-year-old religious
laws can’t have a position on nuclear weapons, etc. But in so doing they ignore
the real significance—that President Rouhani, the Supreme Leader and the rest
of Iran’s government have to answer to their own population too. After years of
repeating that nuclear weapons would be un-Islamic, would violate a fatwa,
etc., it would not be so easy for Iran
There is a long way to go in challenging aspects of President
Obama’s speech at the United Nations—his embrace of American exceptionalism and
his recommitment to a failed approach to Palestinian-Israeli negotiations, his
view that war and violence can only be answered by military force or nothing,
and more. He didn’t explicitly state a willingness to accept Iran ’s participation in international talks on Syria Iran
But in the broader scenario of US-Iran relations, this is a
moment to move forward, to welcome the new approach in Washington
now answering the new approach of Tehran
More flexibility will be required than the United States Israel Syria
© 2013 The Nation
Phyllis
Bennis is a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies. Her books include Understanding the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict: A Primer,Understanding the U.S.-Iran Crisis: A Primer, Ending the Iraq War: A Primer, and most recently Ending the Us War in Afghanistan: A Primer. If you want to receive her talking
points and articles on a regular basis, clickhere and choose
"New Internationalism." You can find her on Facebook here: http://www.facebook.com/PhyllisBennis
Dan Roberts, Guardian
Roberts
reports: "Iran 's new
president Hassan Rouhani has told an
American television audience he is hopeful of a diplomatic breakthrough over Tehran
READ MORE
READ MORE
Let's Talk it Out
|
After
decades of saber rattling, it’s time for diplomacy with
In the past CODEPINK has teamed up with Iranian and Israeli women to oppose war on
Wealthy
lobby groups like AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) are
relentlessly clamoring for increased hostilities towards
Towards a more peaceful world, Alli, Amanda, Kelleen, Jeremy, Jodie, Linda, Medea, Nancy K, Nancy M, Natasha, Noor, Roqayah, Sergei, and Tighe |
|
|
 |
FOCUS: Robert
Scheer | The Moment the US Ended Iran's Brief Experiment in Democracy , RSN
Robert Scheer, Truthdig , August 20, 2013
Scheer writes: "Tragically, the coup that overthrew Mossadegh also crushed Iran's brief experiment in democracy and ushered in six decades of brutal dictatorship followed by religious oppression and regional instability. IfIran is a problem, as the United States
Robert Scheer, Truthdig , August 20, 2013
Scheer writes: "Tragically, the coup that overthrew Mossadegh also crushed Iran's brief experiment in democracy and ushered in six decades of brutal dictatorship followed by religious oppression and regional instability. If
The US government at the time of the coup easily had
manipulated Western media into
denigrating Mossadegh as intemperate, unstable and an otherwise unreliable ally
in the Cold War, but the real motivation for hijacking Iran 's history was Mossadegh's move to
nationalize Western-controlled oil assets in Iran
The target
of this policy of desperation, Mohammad Mosadeq, [sic] was neither a madman nor
an emotional bundle of senility as he was so often pictured in the foreign
press; however, he had become so committed to the ideals of nationalism that he
did things that could not have conceivably helped his people even in the best
and most altruistic of worlds. In refusing to bargain - except on his own
uncompromising terms - with the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, he was in fact
defying the professional politicians of the British government. These leaders
believed, with good reason, that cheap oil for Britain
“A Very Perfect
Instrument: The ferocity and
failure of America
At
the beginning of World War I, Britain set up a blockade designed, according to
one of its architects, Winston
Churchill, to “starve the whole population of Germany — men, women and
children, old and young, wounded and sound — into submission.” By January 1918,
the country’s food supply had been reduced by half and its civilians were dying
almost at the same rate as its soldiers. When the war finally ended eleven
months later, the Germans assumed the blockade would be lifted and they would
be fed again.
Instead
the blockade went on, and was even tightened. By the following spring, German
authorities were projecting a threefold increase in infant mortality. In March
1919, General Herbert Plumer, commander of British occupation forces in the
Rhineland, told Prime Minister David Lloyd George that his men could no longer
stand the sight of “hordes of skinny and bloated children pawing over the offal”
from the British camps.
In a later
memoir, the economist John Maynard Keynes, at the time a chief adviser to the
British Treasury, attributed this collective
punishment of the civilian population. . . . MORE:
http://harpers.org/archive/2013/09/a-very-perfect-instrument/
IF ISRAEL WERE TO ATTACK IRAN
Nuclear Terror in the Middle East
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in his office, 07/22/12. (photo: Getty Images)
Nuclear Terror in the Middle East
n those first minutes, they'll be stunned.
Eyes fixed in a thousand-yard stare, nerve endings numbed. They'll just stand
there. Soon, you'll notice that they are holding their arms out at a 45-degree
angle. Your eyes will be drawn to their hands and you'll think you mind is
playing tricks. But it won't be. Their fingers will start to resemble stalactites,
seeming to melt toward the ground. And it won't be long until the screaming
begins. Shrieking. Moaning. Tens of thousands of victims at once. They'll be
standing amid a sea of shattered concrete and glass, a wasteland punctuated by
the shells of buildings, orphaned walls, stairways leading nowhere.
This could
be Tehran , or
what's left of it, just after an Israeli nuclear strike.
Iranian cities -- owing to geography, climate, building
construction, and population densities -- are particularly vulnerable to
nuclear attack, according to a new study, "Nuclear War Between Israel and
Iran: Lethality Beyond the Pale," published in the journal Conflict & Health by researchers from the University of
Georgia and Harvard University. It is the first publicly released scientific
assessment of what a nuclear attack in the Middle East
might actually mean for people in the region.
Its
scenarios are staggering. An Israeli attack on the Iranian capital of Tehran using five
500-kiloton weapons would, the study estimates, kill seven million people --
86% of the population -- and leave close to 800,000 wounded. A strike with five
250-kiloton weapons would kill an estimated 5.6 million and injure 1.6 million,
according to predictions made using an advanced software package designed to
calculate mass casualties from a nuclear detonation.
Estimates of the civilian toll in other Iranian cities are
even more horrendous. A nuclear assault on the city of Arak ,
the site of a heavy water plant central to Iran 's nuclear program, would
potentially kill 93% of its 424,000 residents. Three 100-kiloton nuclear
weapons hitting the Persian Gulf port of
Bandar Abbas would slaughter an
estimated 94% of its 468,000 citizens, leaving just 1% of the population
uninjured. A multi-weapon strike on Kermanshah , a Kurdish city with
a population of 752,000, would result in an almost unfathomable 99.9% casualty
rate.
Cham Dallas, the director of the Institute for Health
Management and Mass Destruction Defense at the University of Georgia and lead
author of the study, says that the projections are the most catastrophic he's
seen in more than 30 years analyzing weapons of mass destruction and their potential effects.
"The fatality rates are the highest of any nuke simulation I've ever
done," he told me by phone from the nuclear disaster zone in Fukushima , Japan, where he
was doing research. "It's the perfect storm for high fatality rates."
Dallas and his colleagues nonetheless ran simulations for
potential Iranian nuclear strikes on the Israeli cities of Beer Sheva, Haifa,
and Tel Aviv using much smaller 15-kiloton weapons, similar in strength to
thosedropped by the United States on the Japanese
cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945. Their
analyses suggest that, in Beer Shiva, half of the population of 209,000 would
be killed and one-sixth injured. Haifa
would see similar casualty ratios, including 40,000 trauma victims. A strike on
Tel Aviv with two 15-kiloton weapons would potentially slaughter 17% of the
population -- nearly 230,000 people. Close to 150,000 residents would likely be
injured.
These forecasts, like those for Iranian cities, are
difficult even for experts to assess. "Obviously,accurate predictions of
casualty and fatality estimates are next to impossible to obtain," says
Dr. Glen Reeves, a longtime
consultant on the medical effects of radiation for the Defense Department's Defense
Threat Reduction Agency, who was not involved in the research. "I think
their estimates are probably high but not impossibly so."
According to Paul Carroll of
the Ploughshares Fund, a San Francisco-based foundation that advocates for
nuclear disarmament, "the results would be catastrophic" if major
Iranian cities were attacked with modern nuclear weapons. "I don't see 75%
[fatality rates as] being out of the question," says Carroll, after
factoring in the longer-term effects of radiation sickness, burns, and a
devastated medical infrastructure.
According to Dallas and his colleagues, the marked
disparity between estimated fatalities in Israel
and Iran
can be explained by a number of factors. As a start, Israel is presumed to have
extremely powerfulnuclear weapons
and sophisticated delivery capabilities including long-range Jericho missiles,
land-based cruise missiles, submarine-launched missiles, and advanced aircraft
with precision targeting technology.
The nature of Iranian cities also makes them exceptionally
vulnerable to nuclear attack, according to the Conflict & Health study. Tehran ,
for instance, is home to 50% of Iran 's
industry, 30% of its public sector workers, and 50 colleges and universities.
As a result, 12 million people live in or near the capital,
most of them clustered in its core. Like most Iranian cities, Tehran has little
urban sprawl, meaning residents tend to live and work in areas that would be
subject to maximum devastation and would suffer high percentages of fatalities
due to trauma as well as thermal burns caused
by the flash of heat from an explosion.
Nuclear Horror: Then and Now
The first nuclear attack on a civilian population center,
the U.S. strike on Hiroshima, left that city
"uniformly and extensively devastated," according to a study carried out in the wake of the attacks
by the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey. "Practically the entire densely or
moderately built-up portion of the city was leveled by blast and swept by
fire... The surprise, the collapse of many buildings, and the conflagration
contributed to an unprecedented casualty rate." At the time, local health
authorities reported that 60% of immediate deaths were due to flash or flame
burns and medical investigators estimated that 15%-20% of the deaths were
caused by radiation.
Witnesses "stated that people who were in the open
directly under the explosion of the bomb were so severely burned that the skin
was charred dark brown or black and that they died within a few minutes or
hours," according to the 1946 report. "Among
the survivors, the burned areas of the skin showed evidence of burns almost
immediately after the explosion. At first there was marked redness, and other
evidence of thermal burns appeared within the next few minutes or hours."
Many victims kept their arms outstretched because
it was too painful to allow them to hang at their sides
and rub against their bodies. One survivor recalled seeing victims "with both arms so
severely burned that all the skin was hanging from their arms down to their nails, and others having faces swollen like bread, losing their eyesight. It
was like ghosts walking in procession... Some jumped into a river because of
their serious burns. The river was filled with the wounded and blood."
The number of fatalities at Hiroshima has been estimated at 140,000. A nuclear attack
on Nagasaki
three days later is thought to have killed 70,000. Today, according to Dallas , 15-kiloton nuclear weapons of the type used on Japan
are referred to by experts as "firecracker nukes" due to their
relative weakness.
In addition to killing more than 5.5 million people, a
strike on Tehran involving five 250-kiloton weapons -- each of them 16 times
more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima -- would result
in an estimated 803,000 third-degree burn victims, with close to 300,000 others
suffering second degree burns, and 750,000 to 880,000 people severely exposed
to radiation. "Those people with thermal burns over most of their bodies
we can't help," says Dallas .
"Most of these people are not going to survive... there is no saving them.
They'll be in intense agony." As you move out further from the site of the
blast, he says, "it actually gets worse. As the damage decreases, the pain
increases, because you're not numb."
In a best
case scenario, there would be 1,000 critically injured victims for every
surviving doctor but "it will probably be worse," according to Dallas . Whatever remains
of Tehran 's
healthcare system will be inundated with an estimated 1.5 million trauma
sufferers. In a feat of understatement, the researchers report that survivors
"presenting with combined injuries including either thermal burns or
radiation poisoning are unlikely to have favorable outcomes."
Iranian government officials did not respond to a request
for information about how Tehran
would cope in the event of a nuclear attack. When asked if the U.S. military could provide humanitarian aid to Iran after such a strike, a spokesman for
Central Command, whose area of responsibility includes the Middle
East , was circumspect. "U.S. Central Command plans for a wide
range of contingencies to be prepared to provide options to the Secretary of
Defense and the President," he told this reporter. But Frederick Burkle, a senior fellow at the Harvard
Humanitarian Initiative and Harvard University 's School
of Public Health , as well as a
coauthor of the just-published article, is emphatic that the U.S. military could not cope with
the scale of the problem. "I must also say that no country or
international body is prepared to offer the assistance that would be
needed," he told me.
Dallas and his team spent five years working on their study. Their predictions were generated using
a declassified version of a software package developed for the Defense
Department's Defense Threat Reduction Agency, as well as other complementary
software applications. According to Glen Reeves, the software used fails to
account for many of the vagaries and irregularities of an urban environment.
These, he says, would mitigate some of the harmful effects. Examples would be
buildings or cars providing protection from flash burns. He notes, however,
that built-up areas can also exacerbate the number of deaths and injuries.
Blast effects far weaker than what would be necessary to injure the lungs can,
for instance, topple a house. "Your office building can collapse... before
your eardrums pop!" notes Reeves.
The new
study provides the only available scientific predictions to date about what a
nuclear attack in the Middle East might
actually mean. Dallas, who was previously the director of the Center for Mass
Destruction Defense at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is quick
to point out that the study received no U.S. government funding or
oversight. "No one wanted this research to happen," he adds.
Rattling Sabers and Nuclear Denial
Frederick Burkle points out that, today, discussions
about nuclear weapons in the Middle East almost exclusively center on whether
or not Iran will produce an atomic bomb instead of "focusing on ensuring
that thereare options for them to embrace an alternate sense of security."
He warns that the repercussions may be grave. "The longer this goes on the
more weempower that singularthinking both within Iran
and Israel ."
Even if Iran
were someday to build several small nuclear weapons, their utility would be
limited. After all, analysts note that Israel
would be capable of launching a post-attack response which would simply
devastate Iran .
Right now, Israel is the only nuclear-armed state in the Middle East . Yet a preemptive Israeli nuclear strike
against Iran
also seems an unlikely prospect to most experts.
"Currently,
there is little chance of a true nuclear war between the two nations,"
according to Paul Carroll of the Ploughshares Fund. Israel , he points out, would be
unlikely to use nuclear weapons unless its very survival were at stake.
"However, Israel 's
rhetoric about red lines and the threat of a nuclear Iran are something we need to worry
about," he toldme recently by email. "A military strike to defeat Iran 's
nuclear capacity would A) not work B) ensure that Iran WOULD then pursue a bomb
(something they have not clearly decided to do yet) and C) risk a regional
war."
Cham Dallas sees the threat in even starker terms.
"The Iranians and the Israelis are both committed to conflict," he
told me. He isn't alone in voicing concern. "What will we do if Israel threatens Tehran with nuclear obliteration?... A
nuclear battle in the Middle East, one-sided or not, would be the most
destabilizing military event since Pearl Harbor ,"
wrote Pulitzer Prize-winning national security reporter Tim Weiner in arecent op-ed for Bloomberg News. "Our military
commanders know a thousand ways in which a war could start between Israel and Iran ... No one has ever fought a
nuclear war, however. No one knows how to end one."
The Middle East is hardly
the only site of potential nuclear catastrophe. Today, according to
the Ploughshares Fund, there are an estimated 17,300 nuclear weapons in the
world. Russia reportedly has
the most with 8,500; North
Korea , the fewest with less than 10. Donald
Cook, the administrator for defense programs at the U.S. National Nuclear
Security Administration, recently confirmed that the United States possesses around
4,700 nuclear warheads. Other nuclear powers include rivals India and Pakistan , which stood on the brink of nuclear war in 2002. (Just this year, Indian
government officials warned residents of Kashmir ,
the divided territory claimed by both nations, to prepare for a possible
nuclear war.) Recently, India and nuclear-armed neighbor China, which went to war with each other in the 1960s, again
found themselves on the verge of a crisis due to a border dispute in a remote
area of the Himalayas.
In a world
awash in nuclear weapons, saber-rattling, brinkmanship, erratic behavior,
miscalculations, technological errors, or errors in judgment could lead to a
nuclear detonation and suffering on an almost unimaginable scale, perhaps
nowhere more so than in Iran .
"Not only would the immediate impacts be devastating, but the lingering
effects and our ability to deal with them would be far more difficult than a
9/11 or earthquake/tsunami event," notes Paul Carroll. Radiation could
turn areas of a country into no-go zones; healthcare infrastructure would be
crippled or totally destroyed; and depending on climatic conditions and the
prevailing winds, whole regions might have their agriculture poisoned.
"One large bomb could do this, let alone a handful, say, in a South Asian
conflict," he told me.
"I do
believe that the longer we have these weapons and the more there are, the
greater the chances that we will experience either an intentional attack
(state-based or terrorist) or an accident," Carroll wrote in his email.
"In many ways, we've been lucky since 1945. There have been some very
close calls. But our luck won't hold forever."
Cham Dallas
says there is an urgent need to grapple with the prospect of nuclear attacks,
not later, but now. "There are going to be other big public health issues
in the twenty-first century, but in the first third, this is it. It's a freight
train coming down the tracks," he told me. "People don't want to face
this. They're in denial."
After Ahmadinejad, Alarmism Still Reigns
Spinning Iranian election results to maintain an official enemy , by Nima Shirazi. Extra! (August 2013).
Spinning Iranian election results to maintain an official enemy , by Nima Shirazi. Extra! (August 2013).
·
HOME
·
ABOUT»
·
EXTRA!»
·
FAIR TV
·
STORE
·
DONATE
Aug
01
2013
After Ahmadinejad,
Alarmism Still Reigns
Spinning Iranian election
results to maintain an official enemy
With the surprise
election (CNN, 6/15/13) of moderate pragmatist Hassan Rouhani
as the next president of Iran, and the attendant departure of the West’s
favorite bogeyman, outgoing President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, from the political
stage, U.S. elite media have had to rapidly adapt the collective narrative in
order to maintain their alarmist depiction of the Islamic Republic.
For the past eight
years, references to what is perceived as Ahmadinejad’s bombastic rhetoric
abounded in political speeches and were readily parroted by the press (Extra!, 6/12). He was routinely presented as a
megalomaniacal, apocalyptic madman, hell-bent on developing nuclear weapons in
order to annihilate Israel
(e.g., New York
Hassan Rouhani: moderate pragmatist as
mullah pawn.
While Iran’s
political and religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has always had final
say over the direction of Iran’s nuclear program—one which, despite a decade of
intrusive inspection, has never been found to have a military dimension (Reuters, 2/22/13)—this fact is only now deemed
noteworthy without Ahmadinejad to kick around anymore. For years, the media
produced report after hysterical report (Jerusalem Post, 5/10/06;NBC News, 9/25/07; Fox
News, 9/11/12) on the Iranian nuclear program
without mentioning Khamenei (Foreign Policy, 11/9/09; Christian
Science Monitor, 11/8/11; AFP, 10/8/12).
With Ahmadinejad’s
coming departure from the political stage and an election on the horizon,
government officials, commentators and reporters alike had been tactfully
pivoting away from placing any emphasis on the Islamic Republic’s elected
executive, focusing instead on the office of the supreme leader. This way,
regardless of how the vote turned out, the Iranian leadership would appear
stagnant, the election written off as “meaningless” (National Review, 6/13/13), and the established perception of a
threatening, intransigent Iran would go unchallenged.
The neoconservative
opinion editors of the Washington Post eagerly led the charge. A pre-election
editorial (6/12/13) determined that “the country’s
supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has ensured that only conservative
regime loyalists were allowed to enter Friday’s first round of elections,” and
that, regardless of who succeeds Ahmadinejad, “all authority over foreign
policy will lie with the ayatollah.” The Post definitively declared, “Mr. Rouhani,
who has emerged as the default candidate of Iran
When the dust
settled from the Iranian ballots, and Rouhani had in fact won, the Post’s editors (6/18/13) were unfazed. Suddenly, “there was
good reason” why Khamenei “chose to accept [Rouhani’s] victory.” After all,
they wrote, Rouhani—with his “more moderate face”—was “a reliable follower of
the supreme leader” who
could well make it
easier for Tehran to resist sanctions and other
international pressure without slowing its progress toward a nuclear bomb, its
intervention in Syria
The Wall Street Journal’s editorial
board (6/17/13) agreed. “Expect Mr. Rouhani to go
along for the talks, but mainly to ease Western sanctions and buy more nuclear
time,” they wrote.
Similarly, Israeli
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has accused Ahmadinejad of “expanding a
fanatic doctrine of genocide” and “developing nuclear weapons to achieve it” (AP, 9/25/07), declared after Rouhani’s victory (Washington
Post, 6/20/13) that the nuclear program is “guided
and controlled by Khamenei. He remains committed to pursuing the path of arming
Iran
While before the
election, Rouhani was viewed as presenting too much of a challenge to
the Iranian regime to be permitted to win, the predominant line afterwards was
that he was, at best, an ayatollah-approved figurehead signaling a clever
change in the Iranian leadership’s public relations campaign (New York Times, 6/17/13) —and proving that the crippling
sanctions regime was working (Washington Post, 6/17/13; AP, 6/20/13).
Rather than
acknowledging his election as a democratic choice by an engaged and informed
populace with its own national, cultural and societal interests, according to
many, Rouhani had simply been permitted to triumph by the supreme leader (Foreign
Affairs, 6/16/13; New
York Times, 6/17/13). AsTime managing editor Richard Stengel
said to Bob Schieffer on Face
the Nation two days after the
vote (6/16/13), “Ayatollah Khamenei runs everything,
basically, so he allowed this to happen.”
For those pushing
military action on behalf of Israel, however, Rouhani is deemed a pathetic pawn
of the mullahs, Khamenei’s hand-picked Trojan Horse—a “tool,” as leading
neoconservatives Reuel Marc Gerecht (New York Times,6/17/13) and John Bolton (Fox News, 6/18/13) each wrote. Despite the massive voter
turnout and subsequent public celebrations in the streets of Iranian cities and
towns, the election was cited as further proof that the Iranian people have no
voice or representation in their own government (Foreign Affairs, 6/16/13; New
York Times, 6/17/13; Weekly
Standard, 6/20/13).
Bill Neely, writing
for NBC News (6/18/13), noted that Rouhani is a “wily
negotiator” who, between 2003 and 2005, “kept Iran ’s
nuclear program going without sanctions being imposed and without Iran Israel Israel
now—it may have to find another way to check Iran
In the meantime, efforts to
demonize Rouhani himself were well underway. His academic bona fides were
questioned (New York
Rouhani was also
accused of duplicity during his tenure as nuclear negotiator (Atlantic, 6/17/13; Reuters, 6/19/13) and implicated by the Wall Street Journal (6/20/13) in terrorist attacks that occurred in
the 1990s. Both allegations have been effectively debunked (LobeLog, 6/25/13; Times
of Israel, 6/24/13; National Interest, 6/28/13).
At the beginning of
July, members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee sent a letter to
President Obama making sure that, just because Ahmadinejad’s term is up, Iran Iran ’s
election unfortunately has done nothing to suggest a reversal of Iran Iran
at a time its illicit program was well underway, indicated his support for Iran
The letter, which,
like most Iran-related correspondence and legislation, was reportedly drafted
by AIPAC staffers (LobeLog, 7/2/13), continued, “Indeed, there appears
nothing ‘moderate’ about his nuclear policies,” and noted, “Moreover, decisions
about Iran’s nuclear program and foreign policy rest mainly in the hands of
Iran’s Supreme Leader Khamenei.” As a result, the House members insisted, “Iran
But neither AIPAC nor
its friends in Congress needed
to worry about the media, which had already fully absorbed the message.
ABC's Dan Harris and Jonathan Karl
parrot AIPAC on "pro-nuclear Iran
During a broadcast
of Good Morning America (6/16/13) shortly after the election, co-anchor
Dan Harris spoke with ABC NewsWhite
House correspondent Jonathan Karl about the prospects of improved relations
between the United States
and Iran
After describing
Ahmadinejad as “one of the most controversial people on Earth” and someone who
“helped push Iran Iran
“Well, maybe a
little less, Dan,” Karl replied, noting what he described as Rouhani’s campaign
platform of “a more conciliatory approach with the West and more freedom at
home.”
“But remember,” Karl
quickly added, “those clerics control everything in Iran Iran
Not to be outdone,
Harris interjected, “And this new president-elect is also pro-nuclear Iran
“Absolutely,” Karl
replied.
Nima Shirazi is an
editor at the online magazine Muftah and writes the political
blog Wide
Asleep in America.
http://vaccineliberationarmy.com/2013/07/06/ed-snowden-war-on-whistleblowers/
Beyond Snowden: US General Cartwright has been indicted for espionage
21st Century Wire Tuesday, 02 July 2013
While the world focuses on Washington’s pursuit of NSA whistleblower Ed Snowden, another much more high ranking member of the US power structure has been indicted for espionage this week…
US General James Cartwright was regarded by Washington insiders as ‘Obama’s General’, and now he’s facing prosecution for blowing the whistle on ‘Operation Olympic Games’ which planted the Stuxnet and Flame viruses in Iranian nuclear facilities in order derail Iran’s civilian nuclear program. At closer examination, it appears that Cartwright’s revelations didn’t so much harm
Mon Mar 4, 2013 1:09 pm (PST) . Posted by:
*Op-Ed by **Desmond Tutu
*3/4/2013, *Guardian*
We cannot intimidate others into behaving well when we ourselves are
misbehaving. Yet that is precisely what nations armed with nuclear weapons
hope to do by censuring North Korea http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/12/north-korea-nuclear-test-earthquake> for its nuclear tests and sounding alarm bells over Iran's pursuit of enriched uranium http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16470100>. According to their logic, a select few nations can ensure the security of all by
having the capacity to destroy all.
*Until we overcome this double standard – until we accept that nuclear
weapons are abhorrent and a grave danger no matter who possesses them, that
threatening a city with radioactive incineration is intolerable no matter
the nationality or religion of its inhabitants – we are unlikely to make
meaningful progress in halting the spread of these monstrous devices, let
alone banishing them from national arsenals.*
Why, for instance, would a proliferating state pay heed to the exhortations
of the US and Russia, which retain thousands of their nuclear warheads on
high alert? How canBritain ,
France and China
non-proliferation while they squander billions modernising their nuclear
forces? What standing hasIsrael
to urge Iran
it harbours its own atomic arsenal?
Nuclear weapons do not discriminate; nor should our leaders. The nuclear
powers must apply the same standard to themselves as to others: zero
nuclear weapons. Whereas the international community has imposed blanket
bans on other weapons with horrendous effects – from biological and
chemical agents to landmines and cluster munitions – it has not yet done so
for the very worst weapons of all. Nuclear weapons are still seen as
legitimate in the hands of some. This must change....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/04/nuclear-weapons-must-be-eradicated
*3/4/2013, *Guardian*
We cannot intimidate others into behaving well when we ourselves are
misbehaving. Yet that is precisely what nations armed with nuclear weapons
hope to do by censuring North Korea http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/12/north-korea-nuclear-test-earthquake> for its nuclear tests and sounding alarm bells over Iran's pursuit of enriched uranium http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16470100>. According to their logic, a select few nations can ensure the security of all by
having the capacity to destroy all.
*Until we overcome this double standard – until we accept that nuclear
weapons are abhorrent and a grave danger no matter who possesses them, that
threatening a city with radioactive incineration is intolerable no matter
the nationality or religion of its inhabitants – we are unlikely to make
meaningful progress in halting the spread of these monstrous devices, let
alone banishing them from national arsenals.*
Why, for instance, would a proliferating state pay heed to the exhortations
of the US and Russia, which retain thousands of their nuclear warheads on
high alert? How can
non-proliferation while they squander billions modernising their nuclear
forces? What standing has
it harbours its own atomic arsenal?
Nuclear weapons do not discriminate; nor should our leaders. The nuclear
powers must apply the same standard to themselves as to others: zero
nuclear weapons. Whereas the international community has imposed blanket
bans on other weapons with horrendous effects – from biological and
chemical agents to landmines and cluster munitions – it has not yet done so
for the very worst weapons of all. Nuclear weapons are still seen as
legitimate in the hands of some. This must change....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/04/nuclear-weapons-must-be-eradicated
GOING TO TEHRAN
Why the United States
Must Come to Terms with the Islamic Republic
of Iran
Flynt
Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
Metropolitan
Books, 2013.
An eye-opening
argument for a new approach to Iran ,
from two of America 's most
informed and influential Middle East experts
Less than a decade
after Washington endorsed a fraudulent case
for invading Iraq , similarly
misinformed and politically motivated claims are pushing America toward war with Iran America
Former analysts in
both the Bush and Clinton administrations, the Leveretts offer a uniquely
informed account of Iran Iran 's
political order is not on the verge of collapse, that most Iranians still
support the Islamic Republic, and that Iran 's
regional influence makes it critical to progress in the Middle
East . Drawing on years of research and access to high-level
officials, Going to Tehran explains how Iran
A bold call for new
thinking, the Leveretts' indispensable work makes it clear that America must "go to Tehran
CONNECT WITH THE AUTHOR
MACMILLAN NEWSLETTER
Sign up to receive information about new books, author
events, and special offers.
Jump to:
·
Media
·
Reviews
1.
The Race for Iran
www.raceforiran.com/
Race for Iran Is Going to Tehran
2.
Going to Tehran: Why the United States Must Come to Terms with ...
Going to Tehran :
Why the United States Must
Come to Terms with the Islamic Republic
of Iran
3.
Dissecting America's Iran Debate: Flynt Leverett ... - Going to Tehran
goingtotehran.com/dissecting-americas-iran-debate-flynt-leverett-on-con...
May 4, 2013 – The half-hour episode,
also titled “Going to Tehran ,”
is available on You... 102 Responses to “Dissecting America's Iran
4.
'Going to Tehran,' by Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett ...
www.nytimes.com/.../going-to-tehran-by-flynt-leverett-and-hillary-mann-le...
The Iran Tehran
President Rohani: Iran
http://www.news.va/en/news/asiairan-president-rohani-iran-and-the-holy-see-to
http://www.news.va/en/news/asiairan-president-rohani-iran-and-the-holy-see-to
Wednesday, April 03, 2013 8:07 AM
Historians Against the
War is posting Frank Brodhead's "Iran Princeton
University and has co-authored several
books on US Afghanistan
April 2, 2013
Hello All –
Following a “successful” renewal of negotiations in February, and an ambiguous
round of technical talks in March, Iran and the P5+1 (the five permanent
members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany) are set to meet again in
Kazakhstan at the end of this week. What
are the prospects for progress in resolving disputes about Iran
The basic parameters of these talks will
pit demands by the United States
that Iran cease or reduce
critical parts of its uranium enrichment program against claims by Iran that progress can only be based on “the
West’s” acceptance of Iran
Among “Western”
analysts, there are two broad areas of discussion and disagreement: what are Iran Iran Iran ’s
nuclear program and the actual effect of the economic sanctions point to the
need for the US antiwar
movement to pay more attention to Iran
The
political-military climate surrounding this weeks negotiations in Kazakhstan Syria Syria could fail to drag in Iran and unleash the military action against Iran that the United
States and Israel
Once again I
would like to thank those who you who have forwarded this newsletter or linked
it on your sites. Previous
“issues” of the Iran War Weekly are posted athttp://warisacrime.org/blog/46383. If you would like to receive the
IWW mailings, please send me
an email at fbrodhead@aol.com.
Best wishes,
Frank Brodhead
OVERVIEWS AND
PERSPECTIVES
A Curate’s
Egg (Good in Parts)
By Peter
Jenkins, Lobe Log [March 31, 2013]
[Being British,
former IAEA envoy Peter Jenkins assumes that we are familiar with the 1895 Punch cartoon that brought “curate’s
egg” – meaning that (contrary to fact) something basically rotten has good
parts nevertheless – into our common English language. I learned this factoid athttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curate%27s_egg.]
---- Last week,
while visiting Israel Iran
policy: their insistence on making unique demands of Iran
Iranian
People Caught in Crossfire of Dueling Messages
By Farideh
Farhi, Inter Press Service [March 27, 2013]
---- This year,
like the first year of Obama’s presidency, the two leaders’ public messages had
added significance because of the positive signals broadcast by both sides
after Iran and the five
permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany
met in Almaty , Kazakhstan
Obama and America ’s “Imperial Temptation” in the Middle East
By Flynt
Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett, Aljazeera [March 2013]
---- Following
President Obama’s address to an audience of Israeli students in Jerusalem last
week, progressive commentators in the United States hailed the speech as “a
passionate appeal for peace” that “placed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
squarely back on his agenda.” But those intoxicated by Obama’s rhetoric will
soon experience a painful hangover. For the President’s Israel speech and the rest of his Middle East
trip were focused, first and foremost, on domestic politics here in the United States America
NEGOTIATIONS ON
IRAN
‘Most
substantive’ Iran
By Laura Rozen, Al-Monitor [March 26, 2013]
---- Iranian
nuclear experts [are] deeply engaged on the substance of a revised
international proposal, and said they are considering suspending 20% enrichment
for six months and converting their 20% stockpile to oxide for medical use at
technical talks with six world powers held in Istanbul Kazakhstan
Our Myopic
Approach to Iran
By Stephen M.
Walt, Foreign Policiy [March 26, 2013]
---- When historians
of American foreign policy look back a few decades from now, they will shake
their heads in wonder at the incompetence of the U.S.
effort to deal with Iran U.S. Iran
Also useful – Nat Parry, “Obama’s Nuke Double Standards,” Consortium News[March 27, 2013] http://consortiumnews.com/2013/03/27/obamas-nuke-double-standards/
Stopping an
Undetectable Iranian Bomb
By David Albright,
et al., Wall St. Journal [March 26, 2013]
[FB – David
Albright and his Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) often
provide scientific cover for conservative critiques of Iran Iran
---- Iran Iran Iran Iran Tehran Iran has produced sufficient fissile
material—weapons-grade uranium or separated plutonium—it will be much more
difficult for the West to stop Iran
False Choices
on Iran
By Paul R.
Pillar, The National Interest [March 31, 2013]
---- A
well-recognized attribute of opinion polling is that the wording of questions
heavily influences the results of a poll. Even experienced and reputable organizations
without any apparent ax to grind nonetheless sometimes fall into sloppy wording
that heavily and misleadingly skews the responses. This is especially apt to
happen with topics encumbered by conventional wisdom that is widely accepted
even if it may be erroneous. The Iranian nuclear program is one such topic. …
The problem is not to be laid only at the feet of Pew or of pollsters in
general. The problem is a cloud of presumption that has made debate in the United States over Iran
For the poll - Chemi
Shalev, “Poll: 64% of Americans would support U.S. strike to prevent Iran's
nuclear program,” Haaretz [March 19, 2013]http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/poll-64-of-americans-would-support-u-s-strike-to-prevent-iran-s-nuclear-program.premium-1.510512
Policy
Implications of Iran
By James Zogby, Huffington Post [March 30, 2013]
---- Iran Iran
against international pressure, now they want the international community to do
something to rein in Iran Iran Iran
Double-Digit
Inflation Worsens in Iran
By Rick
Gladstone, New York Times [April 1, 2013]
---- Iran’s
double-digit inflation rate worsened for the sixth consecutive month in March,
the government said on Monday, in what appeared to be an implicit
acknowledgment that international sanctions linked to the disputed Iranian nuclear program are
causing some economic harm. The government’s statistics office said the rate
increased in March to an annualized 31.5 percent, compared with 30.2 percent in
February and 26.4 percent a year earlier, the semiofficial Mehr News Agency
reported. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/world/middleeast/irans-double-digit-inflation-worsens.html?ref=world
SANCTIONS
AGAINST IRAN
Why Sanctions
On Iran Aren't Working
By Bijan Khajehpour, Reza Marashi, & Trita Parsi, National Iranian-American Council [March 26, 2013]
---- Sanctions have so far failed to affect the Iranian government's nuclear policy and are unlikely to do so in the future given the perceptions and calculations of the Iranian elite, according to a new report by the National Iranian American Council (NIAC). "Never Give In and Never Give Up” [pdf] studies the impact of sanctions onTehran Iran and
keep it dependent on foreign powers – continues to dominate the discourse
within Iran
By Bijan Khajehpour, Reza Marashi, & Trita Parsi, National Iranian-American Council [March 26, 2013]
---- Sanctions have so far failed to affect the Iranian government's nuclear policy and are unlikely to do so in the future given the perceptions and calculations of the Iranian elite, according to a new report by the National Iranian American Council (NIAC). "Never Give In and Never Give Up” [pdf] studies the impact of sanctions on
For a useful
analysis of the report – Scott Peterson, “Report: Sanctions may
be speeding Iran's nuclear advancement,” Christian
Science Monitor[March 26, 2013] http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2013/0326/Report-Sanctions-may-be-speeding-Iran-s-nuclear-advancement
Sanctions,
"Analysis", and the Never-Ending Circle of Propaganda --- From NIAC
to Neo-Cons
By Scott Lucas, Enduring America
---- Most of
what passes in the US press
and circles of influence as "analysis" of Iran
Gold exports
from Turkey to Iran
From Reuters [March 29, 2013]
---- Despite
tougher US sanctions, Turkey
exported almost $120 million worth of gold to Iran in February, data showed,
suggesting the two countries' trade of gold for natural gas has resumed despite
tighter US sanctions, though at levels below last year's peaks. http://www.jpost.com/Iranian-Threat/News/Turkey-gold-exports-to-Iran-resume-despite-sanctions-308145
MILITARY ACTION
Legal
Experts: Stuxnet Attack on Iran
By Kim Zetter, Wired [March 25, 2013]
---- A cyberattack
that sabotaged Iran Iran ’s
nuclear program constituted an “armed attack,” which would entitle Iran
Historians Against the War is posting Frank Brodhead's "Iran Princeton University and has co-authored several books on US Afghanistan
May 26, 2013
Hello
All – While huge majorities of the US public oppose war with Iran or US
intervention in Syria, Congress and the mainstream US media have stepped up the
pressure for a more aggressive stance on both fronts. With these factors in mind, we might
ask whether President Obama’s speech this week at the National Defense
University – in which he tried to dispose of liberal pressures on his policies
re: drones, Guantanamo, and “the war on terror” – should be read as a move away
from a confrontation in the Middle East, or as an attempt to secure his liberal
base before more intense confrontations with Iran and Syria.
Following
a series of generally unfruitful meetings regarding Iran ’s
nuclear program, further diplomacy is now on pause until after Iran Iran ’s
Guardian Council disqualified the two presidential aspirants who might have
challenged the policies of Iran ’s
Supreme Leader and the ruling conservative circles; but the fact that the
candidate who has emerged as favored to win has been Iran
Towards
Iran
Leading
media outlets in the United States
are also pushing hard for a more aggressive policy towards Iran Iran Iran , in the fighting in Syria Lebanon
Once
again I would like to thank those who you who have forwarded this newsletter or
linked it on your sites. This
and previous “issues” of the Iran War Weekly are posted athttp://warisacrime.org/blog/46383. If you would like to receive the IWW
mailings, please send me an email at fbrodhead@aol.com.
Best
wishes,
Frank
Brodhead
THE IAEA REPORT ON IRAN
The
UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency released its quarterly report on Iran
Cliff Notes on the May 2013 IAEA Report on Iran
By
Kelsey Davenport, et al., Arms
Control Association [May 22,
2013]
----
The International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) May 2013 quarterly report on
Iran’s nuclear program indicates that Tehran is continuing to move forward on
its nuclear program, installing more advanced centrifuges and building-up its
stockpiles of uranium enriched to 3.5 percent and 20 percent, and moving
forward on construction of its heavy water reactor at Arak. The report findings
underscore the urgent need to intensify negotiations with Tehran
to resolve the political questions surrounding Iran ’s
nuclear program and to resolve the outstanding questions regarding the
potential military dimensions of the program, but, at the same time, the
findings reinforce earlier assessments that Iran
Media Analysis
----
All this seems tame enough, but a closer look at how the IAEA report was
covered in the mainstream media is instructive. For example, the New York Times story (by David E. Sanger and
William J. Broad) was headlined “Iran Iran
is making a “bid” for nuclear weapons; and the burden of the Sanger/Broad story
measures the dry facts in the IAEA report with the milestones that would be
passed if Iran Iran Ado Iran
The New York Times article can be read athttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/world/middleeast/irans-nuclear-program-is-seen-making-progress-in-iaea-report.html?hp.
A widely published article with similar problems from the Associated Press can
be read at http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/iran-has-installed-700-nuclear-centrifuges-this-year-diplomats-say-1.525393. A very good analysis of Israeli Prime
Minister Netanyahu’s shrill response to the IAEA report (“diplomacy and
sanctions are not working!”) is by Jason Ditz, “Netanyahu: Diplomacy,
Sanctions Unable to Stop Iran,” Antiwar.com [May 23, 2013]http://news.antiwar.com/2013/05/23/netanyahu-diplomacy-sanctions-unable-to-stop-iran/. At his website “Enduring America,”
analyst Scott Lucas walks us through some of the key points in the report that
are spinnable by those seeking to justify more aggressive action against
Iran. His article, “Iran
Analysis: Hype & Substance --- 3 Key Points on Latest IAEA
Nuclear Report,” [May 23,
2013] can be read at http://www.enduringamerica.com/home/2013/5/23/iran-analysis-hype-substance-3-key-points-on-latest-iaea-nuc.html. Finally, an interesting Associate
Press article was published Saturday that bears on the IAEA report
itself. Written by George
Jahn, who is frequently described by critics of US
diplomacy towards Iran as a
water carrier for US
propaganda, the article states that two IAEA officials told Jahn that 80
percent of their “intelligence” about Iran ’s
nuclear program “comes from the United
States
By
Jim Lobe, Inter Press Service [May 23 2013]
----
The U.S. Congress moved closer here Wednesday to imposing a full trade embargo
against Iran and pledged its
support to Israel if it felt
compelled to attack Tehran Washington , it said, should support Israel “in accordance with United States law and the constitutional
responsibility of Congress to authorize the use of military force” if Israel “is compelled to take military action in
legitimate self-defense against Iran Iran
Also on the “pro-Israel” resolution – Michael Bowman, “US Lawmakers Pledge to
Back Israel Against Iran,” Voice
of America [May 22, 2013] http://www.voanews.com/content/u-congress-resolution-israel-iran-nuclear/1666558.html;
and Associated Press, “US Senate and House Committee
Back Israel in defense against Iran nuclear threat” [May 23, 2013]http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4383234,00.html
(Video) Iran and American Foreign
Policy: Where the US
With
Flynt Leverett, Hillary Mann Leverett, and Noam Chomsky
[For
those wanting to cut to the substantive chase, Hillary’s presentation starts
18:20 into the video, Flynt’s starts at 37:00, and Chomsky begins at 54:00,
followed by Q&A with the audience.]
On Ambassador Sherman’s Testimony on Iran
By
Peter Jenkins, Lobe Log [May 21, 2013]
[Peter
Jenkins is a former UK
----
Listening, on 15 May, to the House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on US policy towards Iran US intelligence
community’s confidence that Iran US
opening to China , détente
with the Soviet Union , and the final flurry of
US/USSR agreements heralding the end of the Cold War. That sort of objectivity
should come naturally, one might think, when the adversary is Iran , a state so very much weaker than the US
IRANIAN VIEWS AND PERSPECTIVES
The Problem is the Same: Economy
By
Ali Dadpay , Iran
----
As Iran ’s presidential
election approaches an increasing number of analysts and observers comment on
the state of Iran Iran
What Message New US
Sanctions Are Meant to Convey to Iran
By
Ali Omidi , Iran
----
The United States House of Representatives’ Committee on Foreign Relations
passed a bill on May 22, 2013, which has paved the way for the US President Barak Obama to enforce new
sanctions against all companies conducting transactions with Iran Iran ’s crude oil sales and enforcing more
limitations for transactions with Iran US
support for a possible Israeli attack against Iran United States
is committed to security and survival of Israel
----
Iran Iran
With
one or two unimportant exceptions, the remaining presidential candidates are
seen as close to the views of Supreme Leader Khameinei, with little independent
following or popular appeal. Reform
currents, defeated in the 2009 presidential election and the post-election
political repression, appear to be divided between boycotting the election or
choosing a Lesser Evil. With Rafsanjani now unable to assume this role, a
“reformist” presence in the campaign appears unlikely. But, as many commentators have pointed
out, the only certainty about Iran
(Video) Iranian Politics: Who is pulling the strings?
From Aljazeera [Inside Story] [May 23, 2013] – 25
minutes
----
As two senior politicians are banned from running in the presidential race, we
ask if the outcome is now predictable. Inside Story discusses with guests;
Sadegh Zibakalam, Ghanbar Naderi and Kelly Golnoush Niknejad.http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestory/2013/05/201352382122119842.html
Rafsanjani Shut Out of Iran’s Presidential Race
By
Farideh Farhi, Inter Press
Service [May 22 2013]
----
With the disqualification of former president and current chair of the
Expediency Council Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani by a vetting body, the Guardian
Council, Iran
Also useful – Barbara Slavin, “Iran
Follows 2012 Election Script To Avoid 2013 Election Surprise,” Al-Monitor [May
22, 2013] http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/05/iran-elections-no-surprises-script.html
SANCTIONS AGAINST IRAN
From Reuters [May.23, 2013]
----
A U.S. House of Representatives committee approved legislation on Wednesday
seeking to impose tighter sanctions on Iran Iran 's oil
exports to less than 500,000 barrels a day, limit Tehran 's
access to foreign currency and expand the list of blacklisted sectors of Iran
Sanctions Are No Medicine for the Iran-U.S. Standoff
Bu
Sara Afzal, Huffington Post [May 20, 2013]
----
Due to Iran 's nuclear
development program, in 2012 a new round of multilateral sanctions more
directly targeted Iran Iran 's main banks, including Central Bank of Iran Iran 's
medical industry is dependent on foreign imports, Iran
[See
also Jim Lobe, “U.S. Congress
Moves Toward Full Trade Embargo on Iran
[See
also Ali Amidi, “What Message
New US Sanctions Are Meant to Convey to Iran
ISRAELI VIEWS
By Michael Oren , Washington
[Michael
Oren is Israel ’s ambassador
to the United States
CIVIL WAR/INTERVENTION IN SYRIA
----
As we “go to press” (Sunday), two breaking news stories may have a major impact
on the shape of Syria Istanbul United States
The
second story thread reflects the intense media focus on the suddenly enlarged
role of Lebanon ’s Hezbollah
in the fighting inside Syria
but along the Lebanon
border, and the spillover of the fighting into Lebanon Lebanon
The
good/useful reading linked below surveys both of these topic areas, as well as
useful articles on chemical weapons in Syria ,
the question of Iranian troops supporting government forces, and some valiant
attempts to decipher the policies and strategies of the United States and Israel
Overviews and Perspectives
Stay Out of Syria
By
David Bromwich , New York
----
But the untold story of Syria Syria Qatar is buying up the loyalty of networks of
rebel forces as an investment in the divided Syria
(Video) ‘Syrian Conflict Is A
War Targeting Iran
By Tariq
Ali , Russia
The “Geneva
(Video) A new way forward for Syria
From Aljazeera [Inside Syria] [May 26, 2013] – 25
minutes
----
We look at the implications of a new proposal that would allow President Bashar
al-Assad and his allies to leave Syria Istanbul
Also useful – Kaled Yacoub Oweis,
“Syria opposition seeks to unify as momentum for talks builds,” Reuters [May 24 2013] http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/24/us-syria-crisis-opposition-idUSBRE94M17420130524;
Stephen Starr, “Syrian rebels, U.S. disagree on peace talks,” USA Today [May 22, 2013] http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/05/22/syria-kerry-assad-peace-talks/2351799/;
and John Irish, “France rules out Iran taking part in Syrian peace talks,” Reuters [May 25, 2013] http://www.trust.org/item/20130525152147-orby1/
US Policy/Strategy in Syria
What is the U.S. Really Doing in Syria
By
Stephen M. Walt, Foreign
Policy [May 22, 2013]
----
Permit me to indulge today in a bit of speculation, for which I don't have a
lot of hard evidence. As I read this article yesterday
on Hezbollah's involvement in the Syrian civil war, I began to wonder whether U.S.
Also useful – Jason Ditz, “Poll
Shows Overwhelming Opposition to US Attacking Syria,”Antiwar.com [May 22, 2013] http://news.antiwar.com/2013/05/22/poll-shows-overwhelming-opposition-to-us-attacking-syria/;
Jason Ditz,”Kerry: US Ready to Up Syrian Rebel Aid,”Antiwar.com [May 22, 2013] http://news.antiwar.com/2013/05/22/kerry-us-ready-to-up-syrian-rebel-aid/;
and Zvi Bar’el, “U.S. Willing to keep Assad in the picture to avoid threat of
all-out Mideast war,”[May 22, 2013] http://www.haaretz.com/misc/article-print-page/u-s-willing-to-keep-assad-in-the-picture-to-avoid-threat-of-all-out-mideast-war.premium-1.525417?trailingPath=2.169%2C2.216%2C2.295%2C
Israeli Policies and Strategies
Israel Finding
Itself Drawn Into Syria’s Turmoil
By
Jodi Rudoren, New York Times [May 22, 2013]
----
For more than two years, Israeli leaders have insisted they had no intention of
intervening in the civil war raging in neighboring Syria Israel Israel ’s
complicated relationship with Russia
Also useful – Dan Williams, “General
says Israel ready to attack Syria should Assad fall,” Daily Star [Lebanon] [May 22, 2013] http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2013/May-22/217989-general-says-israel-ready-to-attack-syria-should-assad-fall.ashx#axzz2U9T0jsa4 and Zvi Bar’el, “U.S. Willing to keep
Assad in the picture to avoid threat of all-out Mideast war,”[May 22, 2013] http://www.haaretz.com/misc/article-print-page/u-s-willing-to-keep-assad-in-the-picture-to-avoid-threat-of-all-out-mideast-war.premium-1.525417?trailingPath=2.169%2C2.216%2C2.295%2C
Iranian Troops Fighting in Syria
State Dept Official Says Iranian Troops of Fighting in Syria
By
Jason Ditz, Antiwar.com [May 21, 2013]
Iranian soldiers fighting for Assad in Syria, says State
Department official
By
Anne Gearan , Washington
----
Iran has sent soldiers to Syria Syria , the official said, citing accounts from
members of the opposition Free Syrian Army, which is backed by the United States
And for a “media analysis” – Scott Lucas, “Creating
the Latest Scare Story ‘Iranians Fighting Alongside Hezbollah,’” Enduring America [May 22, 2013]http://www.enduringamerica.com/home/2013/5/22/syria-analysis-creating-the-latest-scare-story-iranians-figh.html
STOP THE ATTACK ON IRAN Iran presents no threat to the US or Israel . Threatening Iran with bombs or embargo violates
the UN Charter. No peacemaking is as
important as opposing and trying to prevent unjust war. Speak up, write, call, donate, don’t give up
on reason and diplomacy; don’t let the fear/warmongers control us. --Dick
Contents of #18
Petition Not to
Attack
Pledge of
Resistance
Abrahamian, The
1953 CIA Coup
Cumings, et al., Inventing the Axis of Evil
Special Section: Frank Brodhead , Iran
Contents #19
Froomkin,
Iraq-Iran Alliance
No comments:
Post a Comment