Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

2012 – Iran and the Israeli poodles

Uprooted Palestinians | January 5, 2012

“The world had witnessed how the United States attacked Iraq for, as it turned out, no reason at all (except to please Israel). Had the Iranian not tried to build nuclear weapons, they would be crazy,” Martin Van Creveld, Israeli military historian, New York Times, August 21, 2004.

On Friday, China said new US sanctions targeting Iran’s central bank and its ability to sell petroleum abroad won’t affect its business dealings with Tehran. Iran’s oil exports to China last year was 547,000 barrels per day or 25% of all its oil exports, and growing: If the daily averages of China’s imports for the last two or three months are maintained (with many expecting them to actually rise), then in 2012 China will be importing nearly one-third of all of Iran’s oil exports.

Even after 31-years of western sanctions, independent international economic reports indicate that Iranians have more disposable income than ever before, and are enjoying the modern amenities of life, such as housing (63%), education (78%), medicare (70%), automobiles (37%) and mobile phones (88%). They are, however, spending more than their income, probably as a result of rising inflation, with less saving.

Iran’s recent Velayat-90 Military Maneuvers and its success in producing and testing Iranian-made uranium fuel rods – a major step toward Iran’s independence in developing a complete domestic nuclear fuel cycle to power the country’s power-generating nuclear plants – have made the US and western Israeli poodles go bananas. The US, France, Britain, Canada and EU have all threatened Iran with further sanctions and military action if Iran tries to block the Strait of Hormuz.

With more Israeli wars expected in the Muslim East; beginning with Syria, Lebanon, Iran and Pakistan – the economic, political and social outlook for 2012 is profoundly negative.

Professor James Petra in an article entitled A Doomsday View of 2012, says:

“The US economy will fall into recession in 2012 and the “jobless recovery of 2011” will be replaced by a steep increase of unemployment in 2012. In fact, the entire labor force will shrink as people losing their unemployment benefits will fail to register. Faced with equally limited political choices, the electorate will react by voting out incumbents, abstaining and via spontaneous and organized mass movements, such as the “occupy Wall Street” protest. Disatisfaction, hostility and frustration will pervade the culture. Democratic demagogues will scapegoat China, the Republican demagogues will blame the immigrants. Both will fulminate against “the islamo-fascists” and especially Iran.”

The 52 Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organizations and their “Israel First” followers in Congress, State, Treasury and the Pentagon will push for war with Iran. If they are successful it will result in a regional conflagration and world depression. Given the extremist Israeli regimes’ success in securing blind obedience to its war policies from the US Congress and White House, any doubts about the real possibility of a major catastrophic outcome can be excluded.

Within the US, Obama has laid the groundwork for a new and bigger war in the Middle East by relocating troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and concentrating them facing Iran. To undermine Iran, Washington is expanding clandestine military and civilian operations against Iranian allies in Syria, Pakistan, Venezuela and China. The key to the US and Israeli bellicose strategy toward Iran is a series of wars in neighboring states, world- wide economic sanctions, cyber-attacks aimed at disabling vital industries and clandestine terrorist assassinations of scientists and military officials. The entire push, planning and execution of the US policies leading up to war with Iran can be empirically attributed to the Zionist power configuration occupying strategic positions in government, mass media and ‘civil society’. A systematic analysis of policymakers designing and implementing economic sanctions policy in Congress finds prominent roles for mega-Zionists like Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Howard Berman; in the White House, Dennis Ross and Jeffrey Feltman in State; Stuart Levy and his replacement David Cohen in Treasury. The White House is totally beholden to Zionist fund raisers and takes its cue from the ‘52’ Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organizations. The Israeli-Zionist strategy is to encircle Iran, weaken it economically and attack its military. The Iraq invasion was the US’s first war for Israel; the Libyan war the second; the current proxy war against Syria is the third.

These wars have destroyed Israel’s adversaries or are in the process of doing so. During 2011, economic sanctions, which were designed to create domestic discontent in Iran were the principle weapon of choice. The global sanctions campaign engaged the entire energies of the major Jewish-Zionist lobbies. They also faced no opposition in the mass media, Congress or the White Office. The Zionist power configuration(ZPC) faced virtually no criticism from any of the progressive, leftist and socialist journals, movements or grouplets – with a few notable exceptions. The past year’s relocation of troops from Iraq to the borders of Iran, the sanctions and the rising Big Push from Israel’s fifth column in the US means War in the Middle East. This likely means a “surprise” aerial and maritime missile attack by US forces. This will be based on a concocted pretext of an “imminent nuclear attack” cooked up by Mossad and transmitted by the ZPC to the Congress and White House for consumption and transmission to the world. It will be a destructive, bloody, prolonged war for Israel. The US will bear the direct military cost by itself but the rest of the world will pay a dear economic price. The Zionist promoted US war will convert the recession of early 2012 into a major depression by the end of the year and probably provoke mass upheavals.

January 5, 2012 Posted by | Economics, Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | Leave a comment

RICK SANTORUM GETS THE NOD AS THE NEOCONS’ MAN

By Damian Lataan | January 3, 2012

No sooner had Rupert Murdoch anointed Rick Santorum last night as the man he will support for the presidency then William Kristol quickly posted a last minute tid-bit at The Weekly Standard website before heading off to bed saying what a ‘good omen’ it was for him to bump into Santorum in the lobby of the hotel that they both just happen to be staying at.

Neocons don’t do ‘omens’. They carefully plan stuff.

They’ve been hanging out in the wings for weeks waiting and watching how each of the candidates are performing, paying particular attention to their foreign policy attributes. It’s odd, however, that Kristol barely even mentioned Santorum as a possibility when he was rummaging around in an article that clearly demonstrated that they were very disappointed with the then field. As I said in my article at the time, Kristol’s list of possibilities then was Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Mitch Daniels, Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush, but I doubt – apart from Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio – that he took any of them seriously.

But now the man with the most influence has come down on the side of Santorum, all we can do now is sit back and watch how all the neocons follow their master’s words.

January 3, 2012 Posted by | Wars for Israel | Leave a comment

Lebanese FM: Solution in Syria Internal Not Through Foreign Interference That Complicates Situation

SANA |January 02, 2012

KUWAIT – Lebanese Foreign Minister Adnan Mansour underlined that the solution in Syria is internal and cannot be solved through foreign interference in the country’s domestic affairs because this will hinder the solution and does not deepen dialogue rather it complicates the situation, expressing hope that Syria would overcome the crisis.

The Lebanese Minister told al-Anbaa Kuwaiti Newspaper on Monday that the Syrian leadership did not refuse reforms, rather it accepted them from the beginning and reforms cannot be achieved out of the blue, but rather fulfilled through dialogue.

He added “the events taking place in Syria concern us to a great extent because Syria and Lebanon are neighboring brotherly countries which are connected through geographic, economic, social and humanitarian ties and there are common things between them i.e. stability and security….security and stability in Syria reflect positively or negatively on Lebanon.”

Regarding Lebanese Defense Minister Fayez Ghosn’s statements on the infiltration of al-Qaeda members from Lebanon into Syria, Mansour underlined that Lebanese Interior Minister Marwan Charbel did not contradict Minister Ghosn regarding his information about al-Qaeda members, saying that the Defense Minister did not talk about the existence of al-Qaeda in Lebanon, but rather about members crossing borders between Syria and Lebanon.

In a similar context, former Lebanese Information Minister Michel Samaha said that Syria is a resistant country and it protects resistance, adding ” I advice not to try Syria in a military confrontation nor in imposing a no-fly zone because it will fight for its people and for its national sovereignty.”

Samaha pointed out that Syria accepted to receive the Arab observers and they have to prove that they are not biased and that they will relay the situation known by the Syrians through their report.

He clarified that the Syrian people, under the leadership of President Bashar al-Assad, reject to deal with those who call themselves the opposition abroad; the latter presented credentials to Israel. On a relevant note, Lebanese Liberation and Development Bloc member MP Ayoub Hamid called for not interfering in Syria’s internal affairs or using Lebanon as a platform against Syria, recalling that Syria supported Lebanon during its hardest times, particularly during the Israeli aggressions on it and during its internal ordeals.

January 3, 2012 Posted by | Wars for Israel | Leave a comment

Glenn Greenwald presents 25 reasons to register as a Republican

Glenn Greenwald:

The candidate supported by progressives — President Obama … holds heinous views on a slew of critical issues and himself has done heinous things with the power he has been vested. He has slaughtered civilians — Muslim children by the dozens — not once or twice, but continuously in numerous nations with drones, cluster bombs and other forms of attack. He has sought to overturn a global ban on cluster bombs. He has institutionalized the power of Presidents — in secret and with no checks — to target American citizens for assassination-by-CIA, far from any battlefield. He has waged an unprecedented war against whistleblowers, the protection of which was once a liberal shibboleth. He rendered permanently irrelevant the War Powers Resolution, a crown jewel in the list of post-Vietnam liberal accomplishments, and thus enshrined the power of Presidents to wage war even in the face of a Congressional vote against it. His obsession with secrecy is so extreme that it has become darkly laughable in its manifestations, and he even worked to amend the Freedom of Information Act (another crown jewel of liberal legislative successes) when compliance became inconvenient.

He has entrenched for a generation the once-reviled, once-radical Bush/Cheney Terrorism powers of indefinite detention, military commissions, and the state secret privilege as a weapon to immunize political leaders from the rule of law. He has shielded Bush era criminals from every last form of accountability. He has vigorously prosecuted the cruel and supremely racist War on Drugs, including those parts he vowed during the campaign to relinquish — a war which devastates minority communities and encages and converts into felons huge numbers of minority youth for no good reason. He has empowered thieving bankers through the Wall Street bailout, Fed secrecy, efforts to shield mortgage defrauders from prosecution, and the appointment of an endless roster of former Goldman, Sachs executives and lobbyists. He’s brought the nation to a full-on Cold War and a covert hot war with Iran, on the brink of far greater hostilities. He has made the U.S. as subservient as ever to the destructive agenda of the right-wing Israeli government. His support for some of the Arab world’s most repressive regimes is as strong as ever.

Most of all, America’s National Security State, its Surveillance State, and its posture of endless war is more robust than ever before. The nation suffers from what National Journal‘s Michael Hirsh just christened “Obama’s Romance with the CIA.” He has created what The Washington Post just dubbed “a vast drone/killing operation,” all behind an impenetrable wall of secrecy and without a shred of oversight. Obama’s steadfast devotion to what Dana Priest and William Arkin called “Top Secret America” has severe domestic repercussions as well, building up vast debt and deficits in the name of militarism that create the pretext for the “austerity” measures which the Washington class (including Obama) is plotting to impose on America’s middle and lower classes… Full article at Salon.com

~

In almost half of all states the only way that you can voice your opposition to these despicable policies is to register as a Republican 30 days (in some states less) prior to the primary election. As a registered Republican you have the privilege of voting for the candidate that has taken a contrary position on all of these issues, Ron Paul.

You can also help send Romney or Gingrich packing as an added perk. But be sure to re-register as a Republican in time.

From The Center for Voting and Democracy:

Here are the types of Primaries in the states

Open primary:

Voters of any affiliation may vote for the candidate of whatever party they choose. Some of these open primary states may not have party registration at all; however open primary states do prohibit voters in X primary from going on to participate in Y’s primary or runoff. Yet, this prohibition can be difficult to enforce.

The crucial issue in open primary states is “crossover” voting, which can contribute to the victory of a nominee closer to the center or radically further away. It most often involves members of Party Y (either in an area dominated by Party X or when Party Y’s nominee is a foregone conclusion) voting for the Party X candidate whose views are the most reconciliable with their own. Though this brings the race closer to the center, Democratic and Republican party establishments generally dislike open primaries.

Occasionally, there are concerns about sabotage, or “party crashing,” which involves voting for the most polarizing candidate in the other party’s primary to bolster the chances that it will nominate someone “unelectable” to general election voters in November. An example is Republicans voting for Hillary Clinton in the 2008 presidential primary.

Closed primary:

Only voters registered with a given party can vote in the primary. Parties may have the option to invite unaffiliated voters to participate. Typically, however, independent voters are left out of the process entirely unless they choose to sacrifice their freedom of association for the opportunity to have their say in who represents them. Closed primaries may also exacerbate the radicalization that often occurs at the primary stage, when candidates must cater to the “base,” yet the “fringe” of the party are typically more motivated to turn out.

In a few states, independent voters may register with a party on Election Day. However, they must remain registered with that party until they change their affiliation again.  A couple of states even allow voters registered with one party to switch their registration at the polls to vote in another party’s primary. In these rare instances, a closed primary can more closely resemble open or semi-closed primaries than the closed primaries of other states.

Semi-closed primary:

Independents may choose which party primary to vote in, but voters registered with a party may only vote in that party’s primary. The middle ground between the exclusion of independents in a closed primary and the free-for-all of open primaries, the semi-closed, primary mostly eliminates the concern about members registered to other parties “raiding” another’s election.

Of course people who align with Party X may theoretically still vote in Party Y’s primary if they just register as independent, but it appears most voters do not think that way. Moreover, the potential for sabotage through tactical party registration is also present in the strictest of closed primaries.

Top Two/ non-partisan primary:

This method puts all candidates, regardless of party affiliation, on the same ballot. The top two vote-getters then face off in the general election. This type of system is used in California, Louisiana,  and Washington, as well as in Nebraska for non-partisan election such as for the state’s legislature.

Note on terminology: “Top Two” primaries are often referred to as “open primaries,” but that terminology has long been used in reference to the type of party primaries in which all voters may choose in which party’s primary to participate. By contrast, the “Top Two” system eliminates party primaries altogether. It is more accurately described as “nonpartisan primaries.” It would be more precise and less confusing to at least call them “nonpartisan open primaries.”

The following is a running list of states by types of party primary, updated December 2011:

Here are the individual state rules

State Closed Open Semi-Closed Source Remarks Presidential Primary or Caucus
Alabama x Ala. Code § 17-13- 7 Open
Alaska  R  D Alaska Stat. §§ 15.25.014, 15.25.060 Parties select who may vote in their primaries. To vote in the GOP primary, a voter must be registered as a Republican 30 days before Election Day. Open
Arizona  x Ariz. Att’y Gen. Op. No. I99-025 (R99-049) Arizona uses a “Presidential Preference” system instead of a traditional primary system. Voters must be registered for a party in order to receive a ballot. Closed
Arkansas x Ark. Code Ann. § § 7-7-306- 308 Open
California N/A N/A N/A Proposition 14; CA S.B. 28 California uses the “Top Two” Plan. On June 8, 2010 voters passed Prop. 14 to create a nonpartisan blanket primary system in which all candidates are listed on the same primary ballot and the top two vote recipients face off in the general election. R: Closed; D: Semi-Closed
Colorado x Colo. Rev. Stat. § 1-7-201 Closed, but unaffiliated voters may, however, change their party registration up until Election Day. Affiliated voters must change affiliation 29 days prior to the election. Closed
Connecticut x Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 9-431, 9-59 Parties may choose to allow for semi-closed elections if they make a change to their party rules; however, as of now, the primaries remain closed. Closed
District of Columbia x D.C. Code Ann. § 1-1001.09(g)(1); 1-1001.05(b)(1) Closed primary for D.C. elected officials such as Delegate, Mayor, Chairman, members of Council, and Board of Education. Closed
Delaware x Del. Code Ann. § 3110 Closed
Florida x Fla. Stat. Ann. § 101.021 Closed
Georgia x R: Semi-Closed; D: Open
Hawaii x Haw. Rev. Stat § 12-31 No party affiliation at registration. Open
Idaho  R D Idaho Code Ann. § 34-904A Until 2011, all Idaho primaries were open. After the GOP obtained a declaratory judgment that mandating open primaries violated freedom of association and was thus unconstitutional in Idaho Republican Party v. Ysura, the legislature passed a bill allowing parties to choose which type of primary they use. Democrats have chosen a semi-closed primary; unaffiliated voters may register a party at the polls on election day, but they are bound to that party affiliation at the next election. R: Closed; D: Semi-Closed
Illinois x 10 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/7-43, -45 Voters declare their party affiliation at the polling place to a judge who must then announce it “in a distinct tone of voice, sufficiently loud to be heard by all persons in the polling place.” If there is no “challenge,” the voter is given the primary ballot for his or her declared party. Semi-Closed
Indiana x Ind. Code §§ 3-10- 1-6, 1-9 Classified as a “modified open” primary.” A voter must have voted in the last general election for a majority of the nominees of the party holding the primary, or if that voter did not vote in the last general election, that voter must vote for a majority of the nominees of that party who is holding the primary. However, there is really no way to enforce this, and cross-over occurs often. The same modified open primary is used for the presidential primary. Open
Iowa  x Voters may change party on the day of the primary election. Closed
Kansas R D Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 25-3301 Federal courts declared KS law unconstitutional and now the parties decide who will vote in their primaries. In 2012, Republicans will hold closed primaries; however, they will allow unaffiliated voters to register Republican on election day. Democrats will allow both affiliated and unaffiliated voters to vote. Closed
Kentucky x Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 116.055 Closed
Louisiana x Act 570 The congressional primaries changed from a closed system to an open system with the passage of Act 570, effective January 1, 2011 Closed
Maine x Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, §§ 111, 340 Closed
Maryland x Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law §§ 3- 303, 8-202 Parties may choose to hold open primaries, but must notify the State Board of Elections 6 months prior. Closed
Massachusetts x Mass. Gen. Laws ch.53 §37 Semi-Closed
Michigan x Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.575; Public Act 163 Voters do not have to declare a political party to vote; but must vote for all one party once they enter the voting booth. Closed
Minnesota x Minn. Stat. § 204D.08 Open
Mississippi x Miss. Code Ann. § 23-15-575 No registration by party affiliation. However, in order to participate in the primary, a voter must support the nominations made in that primary. Open
Missouri x Mo. Rev. Stat. § 115.397 R: Semi-Closed; D: Open
Montana x Mont. Code Ann. § 13-10-301 No party registration in MT. Each voter has the choice which ballot to use on Election Day. Open
Nebraska x Neb. Rev. Stat. § 32-702 Partisan primaires are closed, meaning congressional primaries are closed; however unaffiliated voters may vote for a candidate of a particular party. Semi-Closed
Nevada x Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 293.287, 293.518 Closed
New Hampshire x N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann § 659:14 Closed primaries in effect; but the statute allows for semi-closed primary if that party’s rules allow for it. Semi-Closed
New Jersey x N.J. Stat. Ann. § 19:31-13.2 Closed
New Mexico x N.M. Stat. §1-12-7.2 Parties may choose to allow for semi-closed elections if they make a change to their party rules; however, as of now, the primaries remain closed. Closed
New York x N.Y. Elec. Law § 5-304 Closed
North Carolina  x N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 163-59, -119  State law provides for closed primaries, but both parties have opened them up to unaffiliated voters, who may choose on Election Day. Semi-Closed
North Dakota x N.D. Cent. Code, § 40-21-06 No party registration. R: Closed; D: Open
Ohio x Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3513.19 Voters’ right to vote in the primary may be challenged on the basis that they are not affiliated with the party for whom they are voting in the primary. Closed
Oklahoma x Okla. Stat. §26-1-104 Closed
Oregon x Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 247.203, 254.365 Closed
Pennsylvania x 25 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 2812 Closed
Rhode Island x R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 17-9.1-23 An unaffiliated voter for the past 90 days may designate his or her party affiliation on election day by voting for that party in the primary. Semi-Closed
South Carolina x S.C.Code Ann. §§ 7-11-10 A U.S. District Court judge ruled inGreenville County Republican Party Executive Committee v. South Carolina, that South Carolina’s open primary is constitutional. Open
South Dakota R D S.D. Codified Laws § 12-6-26 Parties may choose to allow for semi-closed elections. Democrats have opened up their primaries to allow unaffiliated voters to vote. R: Closed; D: Open
Tennessee x Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-7-115 Voters must affiliate with a party, but may choose to affiliate with that party on the election day. In Tennessee, voters are not registered with party affiliations. Closed
Texas x Tex Elec. Code Ann. § 172.086 No registration by party; voters are not held to affilation of past election. Each year, voters have a clean slate and must choose on primary day whether to vote by a party affilation or as unaffiliated; voters are held to that affiliation in the runoff. For the presidential primary, it is the same system as of December 19, 2011. Open
Utah R D Utah Code Ann. §§ 20A-2-107.5 Parties may choose to open up the primary. Currently, Republicans have a closed primary while Democrats have opened up the primary. R: Closed; D: Open
Vermont x Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 17, § 2363 No registration by party. For presidential primary, voters must declare which ballots they want. Open
Virginia x Va. Code Ann. § 24.2-530 If a primary is called, it will be open. Open
Washington N/A N/A N/A Wash. Rev. Code § 29A.52.112, 29A.36.171 Similar to California’s Top Two system. R: Closed; D: Semi-Closed
West Virginia x W. Va. Code § 3-5- 4 Technically a closed system, but all parties allow any voter who is not registered with an official party to request their ballot for the Primary Election. Semi-Closed
Wisconsin x Wis. Stat. § 6.80 Voters may vote for only one party, but do not have to be affiliated with any party before coming into vote on Election Day. Open
Wyoming x Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 22-5-212 A voter can change his or her party affiliation on election day.

December 31, 2011 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Economics, Illegal Occupation, Militarism, Progressive Hypocrite, Wars for Israel | Leave a comment

Pakistan defies US, honors Iran gas deal

Press TV – December 29, 2011

Islamabad has stepped up work on its bilateral agreements with Tehran including the implementation of a Pak-Iran gas pipeline project despite US threats.

“Construction work on the pipeline in Iranian area was completed. And on remaining portion that was to be constructed in Pakistani area the survey has been completed. Pakistan is bearing losses due to energy crises and it would go ahead with different options including Iran,” The Nation quoted a Pakistani official as saying on Thursday.

The Pakistani source added Islamabad had not backed down from its trade agreement with Iran.

On December 19, high-ranking Islamabad diplomats said the administration of Barack Obama is frustrated with the “rapid progress” of Pakistan’s gas project with Iran, and is exhausting all its resources to sabotage the deal.

“They (US officials) have gone to the extent of threatening [Pakistan’s] President [Asif Ali] Zardari of economic sanctions if work is not stopped immediately,” the official said.

Zardari, however, reportedly dismissed the threats, bluntly asserting that the commissioning of the project is vital and inevitable for the wellbeing of Pakistan’s “fast crumbling” economy.

The USD 7.6 billion gas pipeline deal, which was signed in June 2010, aims to export a daily amount of 21.5 million cubic meters (or 8.7 billion cubic meters per year) of Iranian natural gas to Pakistan.

Iran and Pakistan finalized the details of the deal during bilateral talks held in Tehran in October 2007.

In addition to exporting gas to Turkey, Armenia, and Pakistan, Iran is currently negotiating gas exports to Iraq.

December 29, 2011 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | Leave a comment

9/11 verdict on Iran a mockery of justice

Press TV – December 29, 2011

The US has resorted to “any possible means”, ranging from implicit to explicit acts of enmity, to undermine the Iranian nation and break its resistance to subjugation, a political analyst tells Press TV.

In consonance with its animus-charged measures against the Islamic Republic, “a US court in Manhattan made a mockery of justice, issued a default judgment against Iran, and accused Tehran of being involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks,” Ismail Salami, a Middle East expert, said, citing one such anti-Iran push in an article published on Press TV on Tuesday.

Such an allegation “stands in stark contrast to reason in view of the plethora of evidence pointing with force and logic to the joint role of the CIA and the Mossad in the tragic incident,” he added.

On December 22, a US federal judge in Manhattan alleged that Iran, together with Taliban and al-Qaeda, had been involved in the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington.

The court, meanwhile, withdrew Saudi Arabia’s name from the 10-year-old case, even though 15 of the 19 attackers were of Saudi nationality.

The Iranian author went on to say that the association of the Islamic Republic of Iran with Taliban and al-Qaeda was a move aimed to “further drag Iran into the margins of isolation.”

The US government’s effort to incriminate Iran in the 9/11 case followed another attempt in early October, when the US Justice Department accused Tehran of involvement in a plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to Washington.

Pointing to the full-throttle push by Zionist top officials in Washington and Tel Aviv to devise anti-Iran scenarios, Salami noted, “Any time there is a new allegation against Iran, one should not ignore the prominent role the Zionist lobby plays in the matter. In this case too, a Zionist-funded Birmingham law firm had an important part to play in contributing to the warps and wefts of the plot.”

He further explained that the findings of the US- and Israeli-funded “Wiggins Childs Quinn & Pantazis” firm were based on its interviews with “’defectors from Iran’s intelligence agencies’, namely the members of the anti-Iran MKO [Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization] which is widely branded as a terrorist group and one which is readily available to corroborate the allegations leveled against the Islamic Republic.”

However, it goes without saying that “their henna is void of any valid color,” the Iranian expert insisted, referring to the testimonies of the MKO terrorists.

The allegations of Iran’s involvement in the 9/11 attacks also come as the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) recently removed the name of Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar from the list of “most wanted terrorists.”

Salami said the US efforts to bend Iran to its will “is gradually unfolding in every imaginable area ranging from sabotaging Iranian computer systems to hiring spies and assassins.”

In 2010, two Iranian nuclear scientists were killed in assassination attempts, which, upon comprehensive investigations, Iran’s Intelligence Ministry traced back to Israel — the United States main ally.

The ministry announced on December 13 that it had arrested a CIA agent of Iranian descent, named as Amir Mirzaei Hekmati, foiling an intricate American plot to carry out espionage activities in the Islamic Republic.

The Iranian author also cautioned that “Washington’s literature of threat shuts the window to any meaningful dialogue with Iran.” The Islamic Republic has always expressed readiness to hold negotiations with the United States and European countries on the basis of mutual respect and without any precondition in order to reach an understanding on the issues of mutual concern.

December 29, 2011 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Wars for Israel | Leave a comment

Complaint filed over secret donors to “friends of Israel”

By David Cronin – The Electronic Intifada – 12/28/2011

Last week I wrote about how Labor Friends of Israel (LFI) – a lobby group within Britain’s largest opposition party – appears to be breaking a law on political donations. I am happy to report that the UK’s Electoral Commission has now received a formal request to investigate the LFI and similar organizations affiliated to the country’s ruling coalition.

Jenny Tonge, a member of the House of Lords, has alerted the Commission to the lack of transparency over how Zionist support groups are funded.

Tonge’s letter draws attention to apparent omissions in the information that the “friends of Israel” groups within Labor and the senior government party, the Conservatives, have submitted to the Commission. Under legislation dating from 2001, all donations exceeding £7,500 ($11,600) to “member’s associations” within political parties have to be disclosed.

The LFI has reported spending nearly £77,000 on trips to the Middle East for members of Parliament between 2003 and 2009 and is known to have at least two full-time members of staff. The Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI) have reported expenditure of more than £110,000 on travel since 2011, yet have indicated that they only received donations totalling £29,350 in that period.

Tonge wrote, “The Commission surely has an obligation to examine their finances, together with those of Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel, to ensure that they have not failed to declare any donations above the threshold, as it does seem remarkable to have this level of expenditure without significant donations from groups or individuals.”

Pounding the drumbeat of war

The LFI’s reticence over its funding is at odds with its determination to prove that it is shaping policy. Its 15 December newsletter gloated at how the first visit to Israel and the West Bank by Douglas Alexander, since his appointment as shadow foreign secretary in January, was hosted by the LFI. During the visit Alexander met Israel’s chief spindoctor Mark Regev, a man who has perfected the art of looking suave while telling lies. Alexander showed just how amenable he was to Israeli propaganda by going to see a high school in southern Israel — where, in his words “classrooms doubled up as bomb shelters.”

His itinerary did not include an excursion into the nearby Gaza Strip, where he could have inspected schools destroyed by the highly-equipped Israeli military during Operation Cast Lead three years ago. At least 353 Palestinian children were killed by Israel in that three-week offensive.

The same newsletter illustrates that LFI – like its beloved Regev – has a tenuous relationship with the truth. It brands Iran’s nuclear programme “illegal” and notes that the Labor hierarchy has pledged support for sanctions against the Tehran regime. Readers are not provided with any background details about how it was Israel, not Iran, that introduced nuclear weapons to the Middle East and how it is Israel, not Iran, that has refused to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

The newsletter proceeds to recommend an article by Alan Johnson from the Britain Israel Research Center (BICOM), who praised the British government’s determination “to end the diplomatic merry-go-round, to see Iran plain and to act, now and decisively, to confront it.”

If the “friends of Israel” are pounding the drumbeat of war against Iran, then it is vital that they be closely monitored.

December 28, 2011 Posted by | Corruption, Wars for Israel | Leave a comment

Been there, done that? Israel’s fresh concerns about Iraq

By Philip Weiss on December 27, 2011

One of the lingering controversies of the Iraq war is how beneficial it was to Israel, and whether those benefits were considered by the war’s promoters. Some grist for the mill: A JPost analysis by Yaakov Katz says that the American withdrawal from Iraq has created a security concern for Israel, on the “Eastern Front.”

Then head of the IDF Planning Directorate Maj.-Gen. Ido Nehushtan, the author of the multi-year plan, explained that as long as the US remains in Iraq, Israel has little to be concerned about in terms of a military threat from that country. But, he said, who knows what will happen when America leaves.

Today, Nehushtan is commander of the Israel Air Force and in April, he will step down after a four-year term, leaving behind a force that might not only have to deal with Iran’s nuclear program but also with a potential future threat from Iraq….

The second concern is the possibility that Israel will once again have to take into consideration what is referred to in the IDF as the “Eastern Front,” another term for Iraq as a military threat. Iraq was in fact the primary threat that the IDF believed it faced until the mid-1990s following the First Gulf War, when Israel began to shift its focus to the evolving missile and nuclear threat in Iran.

While Iraq is not believed to be strong militarily today, that could and is already beginning to change. By 2015, Iraq will take receipt of 18 F-16 fighter jets. Israel, for its part, is not actively lobbying Washington against the deal as part of an understanding that it is in the US interest to bolster the Iraqi government

Well– the neoconservatives also wanted the U.S. to stay in Iraq forever. From Ali Gharib at ThinkProgress in September. Emphasis his.

[Bill] Kristol’s new “letterhead organization” — the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI) — released a letter yesterday about the Obama administration’s reported plan to drop troop levels in Iraq to a mere several thousand.

After lauding U.S. efforts in Iraq so far, the FPI letter, signed by 40 mostly-neoconservative analysts, said:

“We are thus gravely concerned about recent news reports suggesting that the White House is considering leaving only a residual force of 4,000 or fewer U.S. troops in Iraq after the end of this year. This number is significantly smaller than what U.S. military commanders on the ground have reportedly recommended and would limit our ability to ensure that Iraq remains stable and free from significant foreign influence in the years to come.”

December 27, 2011 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | Leave a comment

Netanyahu Slams West: Rhetoric on Iran Should be Matched with Deeds

Al-Manar | December 27, 2011

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu criticized Western powers for ineffective sanctions against Iran, telling a Foreign Ministry gathering certain unnamed countries are not backing their “tough rhetoric on Iran with a willingness to apply crippling sanctions.”

According to The Jerusalem Post, Netanyahu told Israel’s ambassadors and head of missions abroad meeting in the Foreign Ministry in a closed address Monday that the expressed desire by certain countries, led by the US, to strengthen sanctions on Iran was “welcome and important”, but the test of stiffening the sanctions is to take action against both Iran’s petrochemical industry and central bank, he said.

“There is no possibility of talking about crippling sanctions without these steps being taken immediately and with force,” he said.

Netanyahu said that while he didn’t know whether such “crippling” sanctions would stop Iran’s nuclear program, he was certain they would make things “difficult enough for the Iranian government that it would have to reconsider its actions.”

“But if the sanctions were not imposed, it would be interpreted by the Iranians as a sign the West did not truly have the will or intent to stop them,” Netanyahu added.

Netanyahu’s National Security Council head, Yaakov Amidror, addressed the same gathering Monday, and said Israel’s “number one mission” was to prevent Iran from “obtaining nuclear arms”. If Iran gets the ‘bomb’, he warned, it would be a different Middle East and a different world.

December 27, 2011 Posted by | Wars for Israel | Leave a comment

Report: Israeli air-force attacked targets in South Sudan

Ma’an – 25/12/2011

TEL AVIV, Israel – Sudanese media sources have been reporting that Israel’s air-force launched attacks on vehicles in South Sudan last week, Israeli news site Ynet said Sunday.

Al-Intibaha reported last week that two vehicles were hit, killing four people. In a second alleged attack on Dec. 18, a car was bombed.

It is thought that the vehicles belonged to arms smugglers. The reports were not confirmed by Sudanese officials.

December 25, 2011 Posted by | War Crimes, Wars for Israel | Leave a comment

Japanese FM: Iranian oil imports must continue

Press TV – December 20, 2011

Japanese Foreign Minister Koichiro Gemba says his country will not stop importing oil from the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Gemba made the remarks on Monday during a visit to Washington after talks with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, noting that stopping crude imports from Iran could endanger the entire global economy.

“Specifically in relation to the (US) national defense authorization act, which targets the central bank of Iran, I conveyed my view that there is a danger of causing damage to the entire global economy if the imports of Iranian crude oil stop,” he said.

According to a report published in a Japanese newspaper on Sunday, Japan, which gets 10 percent of its oil imports from Iran, would be hardest hit in case sanctions were slapped against the Iranian oil industry over the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program.

Earlier in the last week, both houses of the US Congress passed a bill that included provisions that would impose sanctions on the foreign financial institutions that did business with the Central Bank of Iran.

The United States, Britain, and Canada imposed unilateral sanctions on Iran’s energy and financial sectors on November 21 in the wake of the latest report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on the country’s nuclear activities.

The report accused Iran of seeking military objectives in its nuclear program.

Iran has dismissed the report as “unbalanced, unprofessional and prepared with political motivation and under political pressure by mostly the United States.”

The US, the Israeli regime, and some of their allies have repeatedly and rhetorically accused Tehran of pursuing military objectives in its nuclear program.

Iran argues that, as a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and a member of the IAEA, it has the right to develop and acquire nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

The IAEA has conducted numerous inspections of Iran’s nuclear facilities, but has never reported any specific evidence indicating that Tehran’s civilian nuclear program has been diverted to nuclear weapons production.

December 19, 2011 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | Leave a comment

Israel lobbying for Iran oil embargo

Press TV – December 19, 2011

Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon

A senior Israeli official has called on the US to impose sanctions on Iran’s oil sector in a meeting with a number of American foreign and defense ministry officials.

Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon tried to persuade Americans to target Iran’s oil sector during a meeting with US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman, the Israeli news outlet Ynet reported on Monday.

Israel reportedly told the US that an oil ban on Iran would not drive up global price.

Tel Aviv says other oil manufacturers, including Saudi Arabia, should increase production in order to reduce global dependency on Iranian oil supply.

Sherman is scheduled to travel to Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf littoral states following the meeting to discuss the Israeli plan.

Israeli officials are also lobbying for the plan by talking to oil manufacturers.

This is while IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associate reported this month that the plans to enforce sanctions on Iran’s oil industry could drive up oil price and wreak havoc on the global market.

The report said Iran’s oil revenues will hit a record of more than 100 billion dollars this year, and the result of any possible sanction is a higher profit for Tehran, because it will sell the oil to someone else.

Last month, the US, and Britain imposed unilateral sanctions on Iran’s energy and financial sectors after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) claimed Iran’s nuclear program had a military aspect.

The US and its allies accuse Iran of pursuing a military nuclear program and have used this allegation as a pretext to convince the UN Security Council to impose four rounds of sanctions on the country.

Tehran has refuted Western allegations, saying that as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), it has the right to acquire and develop atomic technology for peaceful purposes.

December 19, 2011 Posted by | Wars for Israel | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »